I agree with it being complex and not doable in say one day however if the message sent out to, lets say everyone can't be explained in essentially an elevator talk then it will never grow. Not saying it should be that way just saying that it is however.

I wasn't thinking so much of eminent domain as taxing some for programs benefitting others which is rampant today. The constitution didn't seem to prohibit that

The number of people reading Ayn Rand are not the number of people who understand her philosophy.

It's not too complex. The subject matter is complex, which requires thought. If it were all easy it wouldn't have taken so long for Ayn Rand to come along to formulate it. You aren't supposed to be able to pick up important knowledge in a day or less.

Now that I am properly pissed, do I qualify for money?

The founders didn't use government to redistribute private property. Federal eminent domain was rarely used at all until the end of the 19th century. But the states used it before that, and through at least the 1930s state condemnation power was used to take private land and remove people for National Parks, e.g., Acadia, Smoky Mountains, Blue Ridge and Shenandoah.

This wasn't a matter of people realizing they could abuse government power, it was due to a major shift in philosophical outlook. Changes in interpretation of the Constitution were rationalizations of that.

Even doctors in Massachusetts are up in arms over the government controls prohibiting them from treating patients for pain and the progressively increasing bureaucratic 'reporting' and prescription requirements.

You should also read about that era (and the rest from before the Revolution to the early 1950s) in Arthur Ekirch's Decline of American Liberalism. The parts on Progressivism and Pragmatism are especially good.

But descriptions of the not as well known mass condemnations by the National Park Service and the mass commitment of "mountain people" to asylums are harder to find.

Going back to the article, I will argue that a slight majority of the American population are so delusional that it is not possible to obtain an Objectivist society by majority vote.

It isn't contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy to try to establish correct principles and laws for public policy in accordance with the basic principles of protecting the rights of the individual under limited government. This is not "factions, identity groups, etc." Someone had better try to establish more detailed principles of proper government and work with others to implement it. Changes in policy for the better don't happen on their own.

First of all ironic that objectivism comes up as a misspelled word...

Anyways the reason it fails is the reason why a lot of things fail. Too complex and too many voices fighting over the myriad of issues addressed in it and it is not reduced to it's lowest common denominator. Meaning that to fully understand objectivism you could not pick it up in a day or less, even though it is inherently moral.

If those who follow it cannot even agree then how do you expect to convert others?

"Does objectivism support minimal or "limited" government? "

My reading of the objectivism in AS and Fountainhead is it's a philosophy consisted with limited gov't, but it doesn't tell you details about gov't. Some readers may form factions, identity groups, or whatever that provide an informal orthodoxy of what objectivists are supposed to think on policy questions, but this is contrary to objectivism. Objectivism, in my reading of the books, is about thinking for yourself, respecting others' right to their own life and what they make of it, being honest with yourself about what you observe, using rational critical thinking to examine the world, and acting based on what *you* believe is right for *you* and never out of pity, guilt, or any emotion or thought associated with managing what *other people* think.

Good one, Robbie ;^)

you are wasting your time responding to this individual. he/she has obviously read very little of the writings of AR.

It is uglier, but I am aware. Andrew Napolitano 's Suicide Pact chapter 5 Turn-of-the-Century America well details the horrors wroth by The Defense Secrets Act of 1911, The Espionage Act of 1917, and The Sedition Act of 1918

Robbie, you are so right, but the reality is that if we refuse , we go to jail. They have the "law" on their side. So what is the answer?

Just where is it that Objectivism has a strong foothold? From what I see, the answer is nowhere. The problem is that we are dealing with a plague. It is the plague of ignorance and irrationality. As a result, only those who are already cured can help to cure the rest of mankind, and there are so few trying to cure compared to almost the entire of humanity that even though Atlas is one of the most popular books ever written, the amount of people changed by it is miniscule compared to everyone else. However, the fact that this blog exists, that the movie was actually produced, gives one hope that persistence will inevitably pay off.

"In Washington, D.C., according to the report, 42.9 percent of disabled beneficiaries as of December 2013 had been diagnosed with a mental disorder."
A contagion, that apparently starts and spreads out from the nation's capitol... hmm, that explains much.

The gulch was a private enclave with invited participants only, not a model for society and government. At the end of the novel, the judge was modifying the Constitution to properly limit government as was originally intended.

Helidrvr's snarling misrepresention of Ayn Rand as a "collectivist" is because he doesn't like that Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. Never mind that you can't have a society based on individualism with protection of the rights of the individual under anarchy, but not everyone is attracted to Atlas Shrugged for valid reasons.

Objectivism has not failed in the United States as evidenced by the number of people who are reading Ayn Rand's books. however, what has failed is to communicate to people when they are young that they need a philosophy by which to live. and if they were educated as to the different philosophies available they would chose OBJECTIVISM.

Objectivism does not "fail" for rejecting religious notions of original sin and does not deny that some people try to dominate, let alone advocate "utopianism". You are supposed to know that by now. If you can't stop misrepresenting Ayn Rand's philosophy on behalf of your religion you should take it somewhere else.

Well look at the Government budget and deficit. Not so sure you can find any year, even the lauded Clinton "surplus" where the deficit actually decreased. Last time we had a "good year was Andrew Jackson.

Yes, the need for semantic precision is continually ignored or the meaning of terms twisted to suit a desired conclusion. It was indeed interesting. :)