Does objectivism support minimal or "limited" government?

I wouldn't be too sure. I was in social media talking to otherwise rational conservatives, when the subject of Ouija Boards came up this way-"you let her daughter bring one of those into your house without permission?! Evil resides in those things" head hitting desk

Necessity is the mother of invention (and initiative).
First World Complacency, the next local minima to be overcome in human development... assuming religion will continue its decline under the light of first world science and absence of cave men scared of lightning and thunder. Of course being afraid of GMO food is roughly equivalent.

Most who have heard of it and ought to be its supporters count themselves among its enemies. They have avoided reason and have accepted faith or force as their guidance.

Here is an article about the difficulty of why most people don't accept Rand, and why perhaps that doesn't matter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/201...

and a "first world" complacency. Much like the anti-vaccine movement. Young parents today do not remember polio and iron lungs, higher infant mortality rates, much shorter life expectancy etc.

I'm also thinking of 19th century GB. Common practice for husbands/guardians to put into psychiatric hospitals the "disobedient" females in their families. The lure of the disability check I guess trumps the the real risk of possibly losing rights sometime in the future. Currently, if a physician is aware that a person is taking any kind of anti-depressant, he must ask and document whether or not that individual has firearms or he risks a licensing violation.

I would suggest that it is not Objectivism that fails. it is the people who are failing.

The history of this is uglier in the US than you may be aware. At the creation of Shenandoah National Park by Progressives in the 1920s and 30s thousands of "mountain people" were forcibly displaced by the government. Many were moved into psychiatric institutions as supposedly inferior humans.

Don't think you can call Massachusetts anti-religious. There are enough catholics here take over Utah!

I actually think the tenancy for letting people "coast" comes from the lack of understanding of the discipline required to succeed. This may be a consequence of the "we are all winners" mentality.

That is true, but the problem is how to get people to understand it and realize that it's a lot more than politics. Without reason there can be no individualism and rational egoism, and without those there can be no capitalism.

Objectivism is not a collectivist philosophy. It's influence is limited by the lack of understanding of what it it, including from large numbers who say they like Atlas Shrugged and spout all kinds of nonsense contradicting it.

Yes, and while there are all kinds of psychological motives for embracing all kinds of bad ideas including religion and a lot more, attributing "psychology" as the cause of them is bad philosophy and evades the entire history of western philosophy and its influence on the course of civilization. Taking pot shots at the "insane" is no explanation.

Objectivism fails because it is in the end still a collectivist philosophy.

If a person does not understand the true meaning of liberty they cannot be relied upon to defend it. The most insidious form of servitude is that where the slave is kept unaware of the weight of his own chains.

They don't even know what liberty IS.

Because not enough people are interested in reclaiming their liberty.

Objectivism fails in the US because it has never been tried.

Not sure what you're getting at. The list itself pointed at decidedly left-leaning, anti-religious states as those most likely to diagnose with "mental disorders". It should also be pointed out that the more "religious" states such as those in the South tended much more towards private charity and personal responsibility as ways to deal with legitimate mental disorders. The liberals in the Northeast were all about getting on the public dole.

10 million people is a gross underestimate, I think. Romney was wrong with his 47% comment; he underestimated by 5 or 6%.

Most definitely Michael Savage is right that liberalism is a mental disorder. The primary symptom of that disorder is a denial of reality, followed by a process that AR described as "blanking out". This is followed by a faking of reality.

Nobody stays here by faking reality in any manner whatever.

When you have a system that allows this nonsense, don't be surprised when people do it. They think they are smarter than us idiots who work for a living.

I do not understand the comparison. However, I get your point. You understand that religion helps to further confuse definitions. which aids the left. Reason. 1st and last. is the alpha and the omega. is the source, the ending be.

The American Psychiatric Association has a 30-40 year history of defining and re-defining mental illness giving slackers an excuse to drop out and live as parasites on the backs of the productive.

The old USSR used to do the same thing with dissidents except they put them in mental institutions since they couldn't understand they were already living in a workers paradise.

The numbers are more than I would expect. 10 million people, presumably not including the elderly.

If those people are disabled from bona fide mental illness, I wish we could catch it before it became debilitating. If they're faking, I wish we could detect it and get them off the program.

It's sad that those commentators live on left/right ideological sanctimony and indirectly contribute to these problems.

87.4% in con-gress
100% in the oval office

(Don't like my stats, make up your own ;^)