That "bi-partisan" effort entirely makes my point. The people that are entrenched in the status quo, making money and using power, will do anything to keep things as they are. Having a fair haired wealthy guy tear down how things have been is equally distasteful to both sides. In Bill Bennett's article he flatly said, "they will kill him before they allow him to become President." I tend to agree with that. He could be the end of the Republican party. If he were elected, and chose to prosecute Holder, Clinton, and Obama, he could be the end of both parties as we know them. For me, that makes him "the man on a white horse" because the system is so corrupt and so driven by money and power it now longer does what the founders designed it to do. To someone holding an inside straight at the status quo table, he is the devil incarnate. I guess for most of us he is just an interesting side show.

However, the party's Facebook page is "currently unavailable."

It still exists, as least as a Web page: http://www.objectivistparty.us/

There WAS an Objectivist Party, maybe two presidential elections back. I don't think it ever had very many members. The leader tried to draft me into it for the state I was in then, and apparently tried to ... is "organize" an appropriate term for Objectivists?
Anyway, there was an effort, however minimal, to set up Objectivist Party groups but I don't know what came of it. Apparently nothing.

See, just me, one person, asking this question, started this string of comments, wow, what a rush! Imagine if 1000 people, than 100,000 people did the same thing!

See, just me, one person, asking this question, started this string of comments, wow, what a rush!!!

I have a degree from the school of life and hard knocks, with a minor from two years of college. Mike Rowe said “arrogance and elitism are alive and well in every corner of every party.” It is to bad that when he said, “Is it possible that Senator Sanders doesn’t realize the number of college graduates with criminal records?”, he didn’t mention the Bernie Madoff, Senators, other politicians that have been removed from office or gone to jail.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER is what they do.
You want to thank a veteran, Vote veteran someone that puts America before ANY party.
No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

I think Ayn meant: no need to make a big deal about it (existence); not necessarily that existence has always existed and did not have a beginning.

I think Ayn was misunderstood in these respects and she didn't help matters either.

tvpnc.com The Twelve Visions Party of Mark Hamilton whom was very much in favor of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
The Prime Law is about as objective as it gets.

The system makes it extra difficult for any third party to exist never mind prosper.

That influx didn't really transform the election, but it did transform the rules about campaign finance afterward and that was a "bi-partisan" effort. The dems were just as afraid of a democrat doing it.

Unless Trump is actually elected POTUS the most significant change will be even more rules against and independently wealthy candidate standing a chance - regardless of party.

Political "products" have value to people, wether we agree with them or not. Billions of dollars spent to acquire politicians and political control demonstrate that quite vividly.

Because the purpose of a party is to leverage patronage and special favors, not to propound a proper theory of government. Even the Communist Party leverages patronage--just of a different kind. Plum assignments instead of subsidies and protections.

Ask yourself this instead: how to build a decentralized organization that by its very nature cannot and would not act as a big patronage machine? Like Ragnar Danneskjöld's crew, and then the Galt's Gulch Air-Land Militia, only larger. Much larger.

I can only hope that the principles of freedom lure people back from the insanity that currently permeates nearly all policy across the world. The principles of self-ownership, responsibility for choice, free markets (both of ideas and products) and being able to keep the fruits of one's own labors used to be the founding principles of this nation.

The only thing most media hammered on was how Perot's running gave the race to Clinton. I don't think it was really that simple as many Republicans were ticked off when Bush backed out of his "No new taxes" gaffe. If you have more information to add, I'd love to hear it. That was back in the day before alternative media, so my understanding is likely to be somewhat jaundiced.

And how is that different from what I described? It isn't. The difference between physical products you can sell and a political party is that that they are physical products. Physical products can be purchased and demonstrated. In order for a political party to provide the demand it has to already be successful - just like a physical product.

However, unlike a physical product a political party requires a mass of people to buy into it for it to be demonstrated as working, valuable, successful in essence you need early adopters. Which is what I described - you need it adopted by a political division such as a country before others can see it and want it.

You're talking about only part of the process and in that process you're kissing out in the key factors. Not unlike people proclaiming celebrities or products and "instant/overnight" success because they didn't see all the prior years of effort which went into it. You need to find the early adopter, or in other terms the first follower.

Another key difference is that politics require you to get the majority vote here in the states before you can actually demonstrate the product. In a market you have to compete, sure. But in the political market simply promoting your own product and winning by appeal isn't enough to demonstrate it.

The closest we have seen to a successfull "third party" was The Reform Party. It was funded heavily by Perot. Even it wasn't successful despite winning some seats and even a gubernatorial one.

To be a successful party in the states means you have to have enough to exert some control over legislation and executive at state and federal. The RP never achieved that despite a "celebrity" or two and millions of not billions of money provided by Perot.

By contrast coming up with a real life Reardon Metal would be a walk in the woods (also the name of a really good two man play as I recall).

No, it is not "silly". Every politics presupposes an ethics and every ethics presupposes an epistemology. Irrationalism, altruism and collectivism have led to the pressure group warfare of today's fascist trends, and they stick because the underlying thinking is no better than 'discussion on all fours'. But the vicious machinations that go on within politics, especially in Washington and state capitols, reveal much more strategic conniving and misused 'intelligence' than any 'monkeys fighting over a banana'. The chicanery fills an intellectual vacuum perpetrated by ignorance and anti-philosophical cynics.

This is silly. At most, politics ought to be derived from ethics. In reality, politics is the screaming and fighting of any two monkeys that want the same banana. "Politics should be discussed on all fours."

Yes, and look how the influx of independent wealth transformed the Perot, Bush, Clinton election. Maybe that's what Bill and Donald were chatting about last spring.

EXACTLY.
Just as our economy is not truly capitalism, but a mixed, mishmash of capitalism, socialism and whoknowswhatism, so our politics is a mixed up mishmash which reflects flawed metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, based on some reason, but mostly irrational whim and mysticism. It makes no sense attempting an Objectivist Party until the three things politics is based on can be rationally achieved. The only way to do that is to start with the present politics and by correcting the irrational aspects one by one over time, arrive at a reasonable foundation for politics to exist.

As the great John Galt taught us, we cannot change a corrupt system by playing by its rules. We must withdraw and stop the engine of the world. Eventually, the system will rot from within and collapse. Only then will the masses be ready to accept "reason."

I'm a little slow today. I didn't quite catch that you were mocking the standpoint of the conformists.