Ayn Rand did not advocate a "strike". It makes no sense and she opposed it. No one would notice.

You can stop doing things that are punished too much and which you don't have to do, but it will make absolutely no difference to the wrong premises held by those doing the punishing.

Changing how you live in order to avoid punishment is not a strike. A strike is an economic action to change some policy.

I have stopped doing things because the punishment made it no longer worth it, too, but I never expected that personal choice to change government policy.

The economy already suffers from the high taxes and controls and everyone knows it. It doesn't change because so many people like what they think is a proper statist function of government.

When the economy becomes worse people don't like it, but advocate more controls and redistribution for those in "need".

When the economy is good they advocate more controls and taxes to seize the newly created wealth.

In neither case does your personal "strike" makes any difference to them or for policy.

"The goods are here. How did they get here? Somehow. What caused it? Nothing has causes."

The idea behind a “strike” is to stop feeding collectivism with the benefits of the productivity of capitalists. Why give the benefits of my work to collectivists who use them to just extend their control over me ?

Whether we like it or not, taxation will effectively cause less work to be done, even without a specific “strike”, and will reduce economic output. People will simply become less motivated.

I think one of the big reasons trumps economy is better than Obama’s is that at least half the population has been more motivated to succeed- I can feel it at trumps rallies. It’s primarily a psychological increase in mitivation

You have previously advocated a collapse through a "strike" strategy, and otherwise previously welcomed a collapse. I'm glad that is no longer the case.

---

The Constitution was not implemented in opposition to English collectivism; it was drafted and adopted after the Revolution was won. The Revolution opposed English rule in accordance with a principled acceptance of Enligtenment individualism: The Declaration stated the premise, then listed the violations by the King as justification for the revolt. The Constitution implemented a government on the proper principle, with the framers taking careful note of how to head off a repeat of bad past experience with the structure of British and other governments. That was rational thinking. The Constitution was not intended to be a philosophical document, but presupposed the Enlightenment principles underlying the Declaration.

---

Pragmatism is not an alternative to collectivism and not a way to fight it. Pragmatism is a philosophy, primarily emphasizing epistemology. Collectivism in government is in the realm of social ethics and politics (though there are also collectivist theories in metaphysics and epistemology). Collectivism became the preferred goal under the progressives, who embraced and applied Pragmatism in their thinking -- notoriously by the likes of John Dewey, Walter Lippman, and many others.

Pragmatism is just as deadly today in all realms in which it is accepted and applied. It does not "work" and is not a way to fight collectivism or anything else; it only helps it, both directly and by undermining a rational epistemology and ethics.

You should learn more about Pragmatism and all its fallacies and destructiveness. A good place to start is Leonard Peikoff's two lectures on Pragmatism in his history of western philosophy series.

I am not promoting disaster; it’s just what’s going to happen as a result of the intellectual thinking, Or lack thereof, in our culture today. One could argue that even the founding of the USA constitution was not totally based on rational thinking. It was written in response to the excesses of English collectivism and was designed to prevent again those specific excesses.

In the short term wouldn’t you prefer pragmatism to collectivism?

An intellectual revolution required to change the culture is a very long term event and influence, not something that suddenly occurs in time for the next election. There are no substitutes or shortcuts. Promoting disaster as an "opportunity" for people to rethink their entire philosophical outlook is not rational and not "practical".

Trump has slowed, not stopped or reversed, some of the political cancers and made others worse. His anti-intellectual, unprincipled, Pragmatist range of the moment wheeler dealing is not just a "style"; it is a way of thinking and acting with bad consequences now and for the future.

There is no dichotomy between moral principles and the practical. Principles work when they are true. Pragmatism rejects principles, the concept of truth, and understanding of what is true as leading to practical results. It rejects ideas as understanding of facts; substituting the notion of ideas as a "plan of action". It tries to reverse the process of truth leading to what works, redefining "truth" as whatever "works" for the moment, with no consistency and no standards for what it means for anything to "work". Pragmatism itself does not work.

"'The true', to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as 'the right' is only the expedient in the way of our behaving." -- William James, one of the founders of Pragmatism, in his "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth". This and the other elements of Pragmatism are pervasive in American culture today.

Well we should enjoy the fact that trump has been slowing down the March of collectivism for his term. Your intellectual revolution hasn’t occurred and is unlikely to occur anytime soon regardless of a good or bad economy. Hopefully trump will be re elected, but that isn’t guaranteed.

You disparage pragmatism, but if rational thinking is so preferable, it should “work” in practical terms, or what’s the point?

An immediate example of how "things" are not "going great" is the current urgent threat, especially to rural populations, from Trump's enthusiastic endorsement only a few days ago promoting a radical government plan for government acquisition of private property, now going through Congress with the complicity of both Trump and McConnell.

Trump has endorsed and asked Congress to give him a half-century old nightmare-dream of the environmentalists from the days of the Great Society and beaten back repeatedly against their pressure ever since: an off-budget permanent government entitlement, bypassing Congressional appropriations, to automatically pay for perpetual government acquisition of private property, including eminent domain, for the sake of government ownership on principle. (S. 1081, Land and Water Conservation Fund Permanent Funding Act).

This, let alone its significance, is not being reported and few know about it yet. But the smiling, clapping seal display for Trump goes on as his own socialism is sold as "make America Great" while he dishonestly promises that socialism will never come to this country while he is president. At least Bernie is honest enough to tell us what he is and what he is after, and doesn't pretend that it isn't different than capitalism and private property rights as he shafts us.

All of successful life requires thinking and improving one's knowledge regardless of whether or not "things are going great". In particular it is required for change continually building on success.

But while the economy has been better than under Bush and Obama, "things" are not "going great" now. Don't confuse reality with the constant Trump sales pitch and the smiling clapping seals at the Trump idolatry rallies. The cheering squad is a minuscule portion of the population. It's a staged show.

People have serious economic problems and problems from government controls and taxes. Election results are still ominously close, with statist Democrats running the House and many states. The threat of a more extreme socialist left is visibly on the rise. And irrationalism increases all around us in all realms, not just politics, including the use of technology for propaganda, loss of security, and mass surveillance

People normally think more when things are going well for them because thinking is required for human life and to improve on what one already has achieved. It is required for planning in one's own life. But such thinking is normally in terms of their own personal, basic premises, however acquired, and they explore farther or deeper only when they have the means and interest to do so.

You can't force people to re-think their entire sense of life by making them helpless and desperate for their next meal in the collapse that you have said you expect and want as deliberate strategy. They have no means by which to do so and no answers to identify or change to. Knowing that they don't like something does not tell them what is right. What they do know in such circumstances is that they want food from anywhere they can get it, and have been told that their enemies are those who have been successful.

On a personal level, a person in deep trouble may resolve to "turn his life around", but he normally doesn't have the rest of society suppressing it, and may likely turn to an alternative irrationalism like "born again" without ever discovering anything else. Having a problem does not tell you what is right.

The best self-motivated advances in personal thinking at a fundamental level are made possible by a life of success, not disaster, and a desire to understand more -- especially within the intellectually ambitious young -- guided by someone who already knows more.

A gradual decline, or a sudden change in one realm, may raise the interest of some in thinking further, especially as they begin to see further looming problems. But that is mostly confined to those who are already intellectually active and morally ambitious to some degree. Most don't do that without further intellectual stimulation. Most accept and become accustomed to a new level of deprivation and don't know where else to turn.

Sometimes an intellectual spark will occur when someone reads Atlas Shrugged and notices a similarity between it and what they are seeing and hearing, or recognizes a problem that requires more thinking and remembers having once seen a clue in Atlas Shrugged read in the past.

But even having read the novel, many stick to their previous beliefs, as you can see from the conservatives, even on this forum, who relegate Ayn Rand's major concepts and principles as if they were secondary to whatever else attracted them to the novel.

This is why more intellectual activism is required, not imposing disaster.

The notion that the purpose of thinking is to solve a new big problem and that people don't think unless they have a discomforting problem is a result of the spread of Pragmatism, which encourages just that. Pragmatism does not recognize the principle of truth in correspondence with reality, with consistent principles as a guide in life; it sees thought as a 'tool of action', invoked when confronted with discomfort, in which case ones adopts another action for long as it "works": "What is true today may not be true tomorrow." That approach, like the rest of Pragmatism, does not work, and neither does the unprincipled Pragmatist scheme of deliberately imposing pain to try to force people to think up and understand an entire new philosophy.

well, why would anyone ever change while things were going great. When things are not going great people are more receptive to change, hence the opportunity arises to promote more rational thinking. It’s unlikely we have a total collapse tomorrow of the economy, but more likely we experience a gradual but persistent decline

It is a worse "opportunity" than we have now. Desperation and panic in the massive emergency of the total collapse you want does not make semi-rational or irrational people become rational and knowledgeable.

When someone has a problem that his attempt to solve has not worked he is likely to try something else. He is not likely to change his entire ingrained belief structure. A drastic emergency in which people are trying day to day to survive until the next meal does not encourage philosophical thinking.

Panicked people who have no explicitly thought-out philosophy -- being fed more propaganda reinforcing their belief that their problems were caused by the "selfishness" and freedom of "the rich" and not enough faith -- are not going to stop eating for a year or two while they try to understand what philosophy is and a new philosophy they know nothing about. Their new thinking to solve a problem is more likely to be desperately figuring out how to steal what they can with a lynch mob mentality.

The notion that throwing people into cataclysmic disaster is an "opportunity" to make them think about a new philosophy to change an entire culture is thoroughly anti-intellectual and irrational.

Ok. I think I need to clarify better here as well.
No one is "letting" the political parties "have full rule". No once has been able to do anything about it because of the intellectual state of the culture. The political parties have taken over, to the extent that they have, despite our rejection, not because we "let" them.
My point was that by discouraging Objectivists from going into government this is letting these political parties have unfettered rule without the internal challenge of a voting voice within the House/Senate by Objectivists. We cannot have a voice or vote if we have no presence there.

I think I chose my words poorly on this one, or didn't flush it out enough.
The "politics" is not "what is causing the root of most of our problems as a country"..
I understand that it is the philosophy and morality of the people that is resulting in who we have in government. I meant in terms of them implementing their false ideas on everyone - it is the government that is implementing it. The collectivist on the street cannot legally take my property - but the government can. Know what I mean? The politics of the collectivists in government is where and how government imposed action is taking place. I agree with you that this is an end result of corrupt philosophy of the majority - but what I mean was that this is the starting point of enforcing their ideas on everyone else and causing its related problems for everyone. Without that government strong arm - their ideas would be nothing more than bad ideas - the government and the politics there are what bring them to coercive realization.

Now, keep in mind - I do not consider myself a Libertarian. But as the Party Defines itself - they do align with Rand and Objectivism much more closely than Republicans or Democrats. From their website:
Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
We seek to substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut and eliminate taxes at every opportunity.
We believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to offer their goods and services to willing consumers without inappropriate interference from government.
We believe that peaceful, honest people should decide for themselves how to live their lives, without fear of criminal or civil penalties.
We believe that government’s only responsibility, if any, should be protecting people from force and fraud.
Now, do they have the philosophical underpinnings of Objectivism - no - but you cannot tell me that this does not align with Objectivism more so than the other 2 political parties. And, that an Objectivist would have much better chances in being elected by Libertarians (who actually accept these points) than by the other 2 parties.

I don't think we are going to fix the philosophy of the political parties by electing an Objectivist on occasion - but, I have no issue with an Objectivist being elected and having a say in the political sphere vs talking about it on the sidelines. I will argue with you on the notion of a politician being in a position to educate/teach/inform/etc. until the cows come home ;) Do they do this in general, no - can they - yes. If they are actively involved at the grass roots level they can and I've already explained why. Will it replace a thorough education - no. Is it any worse than a few day convention with speakers speaking for an hour each once a year? If done properly - no. And I would say better if they were actively involved in doing speaking events where they go over issues from an Objectivist perspective with the reasoning behind it. If you chose to think otherwise so be it. I politely disagree.

As to what party will Objectivists ever truly succeed in - I don't know. Will they succeed in the Democrat Party - not likely - except that they could make inroads with the larger atheist population contained therein.

With the Republicans - they have more of the freedom and small government side of thinking - but blow it up with their religion (irrationalism) and altruism. Can their religious foundations be overcome - that would be hard.

Libertarians - again their foundation is much closer than the other two - but their constituents are all over the place from my perspective. They seem like they are disenfranchised Dems and Repubs that are angry over a particular issue, or a few, and have moved to the Libertarian Party thinking this is a middle ground - but don't even know the foundational principals of the Libertarian Party - and carry the Dem/Repub baggage of problems with them. It seems like every other Libertarian I talk to is opposite sides of the spectrum - they are in chaos.

So a new Objectivist Party? That's a long road. I don't know. Probably that would be the best route as it would be the most correct from inception. But without the education problem being dealt with, from the beginning stages, it is more or less a moot idea as the Objectivist Party would be so small that as of now the Objectivist candidates would never get on the ballot and would be destroyed by the media and all 3 of these other parties.

I know that any Objectivist in government will accomplish very little on the political side. I still stand by my thought that they could "educate" and persuade as much as most any lecturer running around speaking at conventions and giving hour long lectures will accomplish - if they do it right. Either one doing it wrong will not be successful. Neither will replace a proper education in a proper school using proper teaching methods while teaching proper subjects. But unless you suggest ruling out everything else besides a proper school based education - any additional educational sources in my opinion are welcome. ARI with secondary schoolers via Rand's novels, college speaking events, and yes Objectivist politicians doing the same at their own grass roots events (which could even be their own college speaking events or collaborating [carefully] with ARI at their college campus events - or other Objectivist events) - besides town hall events and so on - giving direct application of Objectivist principles to active political issues.

I don't know - maybe I am failing to understand what you think is education - or maybe you are wanting me to use another word. The way I see it, is if any Objectivist can get someone to understand something that they previously didn't that is central to Objectivist principles - that is education. Is it a full education no - but it is education nonetheless. The more people we can get to understand and accept Objectivist ideas the better - and of course the deeper the better. A full education being the best. But I don't see it as a full education or nothing. If that is the case - then again - ARI thould stop what they are doing with college events and trying to get Rand novels in secondary/middle schools and all lecturers across the world should stop - and only proper schools should be started to teach from K-college - nothing else. I don't think so. A multifaceted approach is ok. Although - as I said before, I do think that proper schools are the major answer - just not to the extent that all other methods should cease.

Now again - maybe your stance in this case is in terms that @dansail in not an Objectivist - but a Libertarian - thus you are not promoting the idea of encouraging them to go into office? If that is the case - then we are not talking on the same plane here. I have no idea if @dansail is Objectivist or Libertarian - or both - or neither. I was simply answering their question and did clarify it in terms of them being an Objectivist. IF they are not - then I would need to know more. I would still suggest someone less damaging than another to run for office to at least slow the speed at which we are traveling towards socialism/communism/etc... That gives us more time to correct the problem from the roots. Lesser of two evils if you will. I have issues with some of Trump's policies - but I'd rather have him than Hillary or Bernie.I will not stand on the side and allow the worse of the two to get it without my vote being cast.

Anyway - enough for now... :)

Ok, maybe I am not making my point clear here. ARI gives access to many resources to all - but where they make extra efforts (their focused efforts) beyond the general information - it is on students - again almost exclusively. And surely for the reasons you pointed out.

ARI, as I said, only recently started allowing non-students to attend the college lectures. That is not my opinion but word for word what I got from ARI's website (which of course I can no longer find to give you a link to). But, great that this is now the case - but for many years it wasn't.

It is an assumption that college students can't pay for events - many do work (such as my daughter currently - and my wife and I while we were in college). Many of them have parents that are supporting them and have the funds to pay for such things if they wish. Equally, for non-students - many can pay, and many cannot. Why subsidize students at the expense of non-students based on some assumption of who has the funds verses not? Private sector wealth redistribution - on a voluntary basis - but it is what it is. It is assuming one group has a need that another group can subsidize. And I agree - I don't have to spend my money on such events - nor do I have any notion of telling these businesses how they must operate. Freedom of trade. I get it. And if they want to charge students less because that is who they want to focus on - then by all means, they can do so. How about everyone pay the same? Should we not trade value for value? If the main group of people showing up are students that are being heavily subsidized by the non-students - then it makes sense why I see events costing many multiples more for non-students to attend (not necessarily ARI here - but others). But again, yes they are free to do so and I am free to not attend. In Peikoff's discussions on education - he makes the point that you effectively devalue the core classes when you add in the frivolous one - the students see you equating basket weaving as equally valuable as arithmetic (my re-wording here). What do we show students when we charge them $50 for an event - while others pay 10+ times more? What does this say to them of the value they should place on the content? It seems to me that it equates it to nearly the "value" of a whim. If they value the content - should they not pay for it as much as anyone else - irrespective of ability to pay? That is what it posed to the non-student. If you value it, pay for - or don't - but even worse - if you value this content pay for it times 10+, so we can let others who "value" it pay only a small fraction of the price.

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus nor stifle my efforts by doing so - so I am not mentioning names or organizations here - but I am trying to gain useful insights from people that have very useful information related to my endeavors. But this kind of pricing model is keeping me from gaining the access to those people. Again, from one of these events that is charging non-students many times more than students. I don't want to subsidize others and I think if everyone was paying equally - then maybe - the students would pay a bit more whereas the rates would drop substantially for the non-students. But again, this results from this focus on students. This is not an approach based on who can pay and who cannot as student vs non-student doesn't define this. But whatever - it is their choice to do it how they see fit. It is hampering my ability to move forward on what I am trying to do based on arbitrary, re-distributive, assumptions. I don't like it. And I am free to say so. Just as they are free to do it that way and not give a crap about what I think about it. :) I will move forward anyway - but with less valuable knowledge that could aid in being more or less successful and probably adding more time to get there.

I have been doing a lot of self study for years - and I am all for that as well. But my goals of current could really use some of the knowledge and experiences of others - that I haven't been able to find anywhere in written form. It is currently in the minds of those that I am interesting in meeting and talking with directly. Now, they may not be willing to share - but as of right now - I think it is tied too these events I'm referring to. Pay and get access - or don't - and you don't get access. And I don't even have a problem with that per se - except that in this case, it contingent on me subsidizing others to the point that it is no longer affordable.

Don't misunderstand me here either - I am not throwing ARI under the bus either. I have used their website a lot and they have a lot of great resources - but I have been interested in events that were closed to non-students. Only in our discussion here did I re-check their website on events and saw that they have now changed it so the college events are now open to all. A recent change that I am happy about.

But like you said earlier - for the vast majority of these students - they have not had the proper education for them to really learn Objectivism. They are FULL of floating abstracts, personal philosophies without proper guidance and FULL of contradictions and for the most part - little to no experiences in life to help them move past this- yet there are such large efforts to get to them with Rand's novels with the idea that suddenly everything will become clear to them. And mostly being given a skewed idea of what Rand was even trying to get across in her novels by teachers that are hostile to her ideas and philosophy. I would argue that just maybe - adults who have gotten some life experience - a real understanding of having to take responsibility for their lives, who have worked jobs or maybe even started their own businesses, may have enough experiences that with a proper introduction to Objectivism - may be easier to really understand it and run with it. They may have floating abstracts or contradictions in their philosophy - but they would also have experience that when being presented with another way of looking at it - would have a stronger impact. In terms of kids - even as Rand said, it needs to begin early. Starting schools that do this is the answer. Trying to fix them in secondary school after a decade of improper education and indoctrination is a difficult challenge. Yet - the energy is focused there.

Focus on the adults who are reachable and in a position to start these schools and to teach properly. They have the a much better chance of having the experiences to get it, to utilize it, and to put it into motion. Whether in how they raise and educate their own kids or by being the ones in a position to start schools of their own.

I honestly think much more emphasis should be placed on post-students. Real life has a way of turning a lot of people away from the collectivist indoctrination they have been taught (to an extent) - because of the life experiences they get after schooling. Many of them see that much of it was wrong - but then they are lost with a lack a proper philosophy like Objectivism - still full of floating abstracts, contradictions, etc... but willing to change as their exposure to real life has made them question and even refute much of the collectivist ideology they had been relying on.

These people will tend to be in a much better place financially, experience wise, and with a new training in Objectivism to start proper schools to begin the real education that students need from early on in their lives. This will be rewarded many times over with the students that come out of these schools with a proper education from the ground up.

With a focus on secondary school kids - much of the efforts will be lost on deaf ears and minds as they simply do not have the educational underpinnings to properly utilize it. You may get a VERY small portion of them that it connects with - and only a small portion of them that will actively do something with it post-school. Not that I think efforts should be abandoned in secondary school. I just think substantially more effort should be put towards those that can help to move the cause forward at a more immediate and exponential rate - and it's not secondary school kids that can do that, nor even college students.

I think the long game starting point it to focus on the entrepreneurs that are open to these ideas more so than anti-business collectivist altruists. Get them on board with Objectivism. And encourage them to start schools teaching via proper methods, subjects, etc... Then competition will decide who has the best particular approaches and MANY more properly educated students would begin coming into the fold. But, as of yet - that is not the direction of ARI, or these other organizations I am dealing with.

And to your last point about about this forum - I know. I have seen this for a while and it's annoying. I have found it difficult to find places to actually associate with other actual Objectivists. I don't know if you got my PM, but I think you are one of the few from what I have observed so far, but since you are not a paid member - I wasn't sure if you got my message or if you could even reply. Are you able to reply to PM's? I would like to talk with you more directly - if you are inclined :)

I know you don’t agree with this. I think the willingness of people to open up their minds is greater when their current beliefs are not resulting in acceptable results.

That opens an opportunity to promote rational thinking. It’s only an opportunity though

I have seen the trend towards collectivism accelerate in the last three years, intellectually and from both political parties.

Ayn Rand said that she felt fortunate that at her age she would no longer be alive for what she expected to come if there were no major change. But to her last breath she never gave up her intellectual battle.

My estimate is we see the pent up socialism of the democrats exploding into the scene in 2024. The millennials are pretty much due hard socialists. Sanders will be out of the picture but someone will take his place and win in 2024

The Ayn Rand Institute is not focusing almost exclusively on students and is not "stifling" any supporters.

It has carefully-designed and implemented programs for students, who are aspiring to become new intellectuals, for good reason. But anyone -- by ARI's intention -- can read the articles and transcripts, and watch and listen to the numerous audio and videos of lectures, panel discussions, and interviews, both recent and from the archives spanning over half a century. They are directed, and always have been back to Ayn Rand herself, at any intelligent, thinking mind.

Anyone can also use the reference pages and the book store section. Recorded lectures are now mostly very inexpensive or are free, in contrast to the high prices that used to be paid for audio recordings of the classic lecture series.

ARI gives presentations at universities because that is where the intellectual activity is centered, not to exclude adults. Many of these are advertised for anyone.

Students are often granted lower cost entrance at all kinds of events in all kinds of causes for the whole range of advocates of all kinds because students aren't working and leaders of various causes believe it is worthwhile to support them in their early intellectual interests. It doesn't mean you are being "stifled" by ARI in particular by not receiving a subsidy.

If you can't afford to attend conferences, then don't, spending your money where you think it best supports your values in accordance with what you can afford. You can learn and gain new understanding by reading, thinking and associating with people who share your intellectual goals (which isn't many on this forum in particular, contrary to its name and initial intention).

Yes, we won't get "major socialism" in this election. We will, however, as Ayn Rand put it, get more "fascism with communist slogans".

I agree. There is also the slow agonizing collapse, but collectivism will eventually result in collapse. Our government doesnt have total control, yet, but its gaining more power every day over more and more sections of our lives

Interesting that there is some blowback against outright socialism like Sanders has promoted. Not for the right reasons, but at least we wont get major socialism this election cycle..

No one is "letting" the political parties "have full rule". No once has been able to do anything about it because of the intellectual state of the culture. The political parties have taken over, to the extent that they have, despite our rejection, not because we "let" them.

The "politics" is not "what is causing the root of most of our problems as a country". The politics is the last step in the implementation of wrong ideas on a mass scale. The chickens are coming home to roost, which has become increasingly visible The trend cannot be changed without correcting the false ideas on a wide scale. There are no shortcuts. Politics today only can succeed on specific issues where there is still some semblance of rational standards against the most damaging extremes.

The Libertarian Party is no solution to that and has not been for its half a century. It is not "aligned" with Objectivism -- as recently illustrated in spades by the Johnson-Weld clown team which pretended to run for president.

Nor can it be anything but a fringe party. Even if it possessed and promoted the right ideas, which it does not, it would be no better -- in this political-intellectual context -- as either a viable political party or as a means of education. Education is not attention-seeking political PR stunts.

No Objectivist is "stifling" them; they are impotent all on their own. They have nothing to offer and have failed because of what they are and their hopeless means of achieving what they claim . Ignoring them and refusing to waste time helping them is not "stifling" anyone.

People have been leaving Venezuela in droves. The ones remaining do not like the results, other than those still holding power. There is no similarity between Venezuelan politics and the fictional plot of Atlas Shrugged, only the results of altruism and collectivism rationalizing power. We do not have totalitarian control here, and neither did the government in Atlas Shrugged, characterized by lack of control through pervasive personal ineptness, have that kind of control.

There are a lot of ways for a country to fail other than through a sudden total collapse.

Well, I did not do particularly well in math.(Straight A's in French--skipped the 2nd year). I did reasonably well in algebra, and quite poorly in geometry, though I made remarkable improvement after a while. The teacher was
very logical in the way he explained things; I asked him once why he didn't teach elementary school, and he said he had before.( I thought that if I had had him in the 2nd grade, instead of that teacher I did have, I might have done better in arithmetic through the years.)
I am going to go for orientation in the READ Center (a local volunteer group) to teach illiterates.Not out of altruism, but I am hoping that if I get some kind of credential out of it, I may be able to free-lance as a tutor teaching people's kids phonics. I know very well how to do it; there is, or was, a grocery store run by Korean immigrants, where I used to hang around and teach their son and daughter phonics, mainly for my own pleasure, and to help them beat the public-school system. (In my own schooling, it just was not done; I did all right, because my mother--a high-school dropout--had taught phonics to me already.) But I can't use the parents as a reference, because they moved away years ago; I managed to get in touch with the father once, and then they moved again, or something.
I don't know just how this will work out; the illiterates to be taught are, I believe, adults, and many of them may be prison inmates. But I hope it will work out.

You are right I dont know exactly how the USA will fare in the future. I do see collectivist trends accelerating however, except for the last 3 years. If democrats get back in power, there will be a release of pent up collectivism. Look at the hatred displayed for trump. He really hasn’t done much to eradicate collectivism- he has just stood in the way of increases in collectivism, and over half the country bitterly hates him. And you wonder why I see a collapse in our future? The millennials are socialists, they embrace sanders, all the democrats running fir president want substantial increases in government vontrol and taxation. The rational intellectual underpinnings of our culture have been pretty much eroded. And we live already in a mob rule democracy where anything goes as long as 50.1% vote it in (the electoral college won’t last too much longer). . It’s true that a number of people have been positively influenced by AR, and I hope that number increases. But it doesn’t look like that will be enough to stop the takeover by collectivists and the decline of the USA into something like the AS scenario

The people of Venezuela , at least the ones that stayed there, voted in Chavez in the first place and permit Madurai to stay in power. I don’t see a lot of difference between the scenarios of AS and Venezuela. AS HAS TOTALITARIAN CONTROL TOO

You seem to have an emotional investment in total collapse. You don't know what the trends in this country will become and what form that will take.

Venezuela was taken over by a communist government imposing totalitarian controls over a very short period of time, which led to a rapid economic collapse and totalitarian oppression. Atlas Shrugged did not predict that every country would be taken over by a communist government regardless of what people think and do.