Obj. is certainly not required to be pro-freedom; but there is a lot more to life that Obj. provides....

I am a proponent of the 80-20 view -- people who are aware of
Rand and objectivism are more likely to add to the world positively
than those who are not. . whether they align with her views or stay
partly "stuck" in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever -- her influence
is more likely to be good than bad, if sincerely and accurately presented.
soooooo, I work to present it accurately, often -- like giving away AS movies!!! -- j
.

Malcom Gladwell's Tipping Point offer's powerful tools and concepts for widespread dissemination of ideas.

There is no need for a "way around" the "divergence". A theory of property rights is not the basis of philosophy, and Locke was wrong on that as well as major areas of epistemology. He was an influential part of the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism, and was a particularly important influence on the founding of American individualism at the birth of the country. But rejection of the dominant ideas of duty and mysticism, with some important replacements, wasn't enough. Locke in particular struggled to defend property rights but could not fully succeed without an explicitly egoistic morality.

Enlightenment philosophy had its share of contradictions and unsolved philosophical problems, a major one being the lack of a moral philosophy challenging human sacrifice, leaving the American egoism of a moral right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness without adequate intellectual defense. Counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Compte and Kant cashed in on that in the name of "science".

The answer isn't to find a "way around a divergence" with Locke, but to identify what is correct. See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for a historical and philosophical explanation of the role of philosophical ideas influencing the founding of this country compared with their opposite in the rise of statism, and how the growth of the wrong ideas in America is undermining and destroying our individualism and freedom.

I beat you by one year 1962, but you are right. I have seen the power of example. People see that if you can do it so can they. The problem comes when they discover it isn't automatic but hard work, mentally and intellectually. Its not enough to know Objectivism, you have to do it. Ellen Kenner's radio program is a great source of how to live rationally.

Ayn Rand created the Gulch not as a place but a gathering of men and women who had achieved a psychological and intellectual state of knowledge and morality that entitled them to have earned each others company in celebration. Liberals, altruists, Christians, libertarians and most others cant and wont do the work to master the use of reason in choosing and integrating the contents of their minds. Liberals want power to force altruism. Christians want power to force gods will. Libertarians want less government without a moral reason for freedom. Objectivism will grow at the rate at which people assume reason as the basis for being responsible for the content of their minds and their self interest as the basis for a moral system as the basis of governing themselves. I agree with Dr. Peikoff's assessment in the DIM hypothesis that Objectivism must wait until individuals discover reason and integrate it in their lives. I believe that integrating science and Objectivism will move that along and I estimate about 15 years. Right now I see lots of talk and very little reasoning. So I may be a little optimistic. Rand offers two glimpses into the world of reason, reread "Monadnock and the young boy with Roark" and of course the Gulch. It was not a retreat from the world but a reward for earning the right to Galt's Oath.

"Most people" do not "hate objectivity and truth".

Most people do not "hate Objectivism". Most people don't know what it is. This has nothing to do with a "tough sell". Better ideas are understood, not "sold" off a used car lot. Religionists and other ideological leftists who misrepresent Ayn Rand's philosophy as based on "hating" religion and altruism as Everything Good are obstructionists, but cannot prevent understanding.

"Live and let live" is sound, and covers most variants of libertarianism. If understanding and accepting Objectivism were a requirement for becoming an advocate of individual freedom, the number of people actively promoting liberty would be much smaller and the spread of pro-freedom ideas - including those of Ayn Rand - would be happening much more slowly.

I think the OP is a false dichotomy. To be an Objectivist does not entail rejecting libertarianism. A libertarian can have an Objectivist moral and ethical structure, but can espouse freedom to make immoral and unethical choices. Nothing in libertarianism says that we must keep silent and accept it when we see immoral behavior based on our Objectivist principles. Part of being a libertarian is accepting that we all have the freedom to go to hell in a handbasket, so choose wisely. No Big Momma government is coming to save you. If Objectivist ethics and morals are correct, then by living the principles we espouse we will give successful examples to other people who can use their libertarian freedom to choose to be like us. Or not.

The spread of rational ideas is not hastened by contradicting them. The irrational does not 'prevent' those who want to understand from doing so.

I don't think we libertarians (small L) lack principles. I think the Party is a bit of a joke, however.

You can't 'accept' everything in Ayn Rand's philosophy while adhering to religion. It is a contradiction. Ayn Rand did not 'insist' on atheism as an isolated preference. It is a consequence of her philosophy of reason that religious faith and dogma be rejected.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is understood or not, not 'accepted' as a competing dogma on a chinese menu. American culture is not predominantly Christian, it is the opposite of the ascetic and mystic sense of life of Christianity from its beginnings. Americans mostly pay lip serve to traditional, contradictory dogmas they don't understand. Those seeking understanding can understand Ayn Rand to the extent they try.

People who really hate Objectivism usually have never read AS nor taken time to understand it. It is trendy to put it down. If you were not brought up seeing Objectivist principles work, it takes time, sometimes a lot of time, to spoon feed the true value of it to people. I happen to think the world and people would all be happier as Objectivists, but it is a hard sell. As to religion, often an excuse tfor not reading Rand, we have few true religions today. Most people do not see that the conflicts among Christians usually are about who is getting to non-religion faster. They are all selling out to the UN and Gaia worship, including the Pope. Churches are almost like politicians, taking polls to see how to appeal to people - that isn't even religion.

An example or two please?

Just pointing out something that will slow -- or prevent -- the growth of objectivism. Another thing that will slow its growth is that the majority are looters.

That is like saying objectivism acceptance is being slowed down because of its insistence on capitalism, since so many people are marxists or saying objectivism's spread is being slowed down by its insistence on science and reason because so many people are mystics.

"Objectivism" is winning, despite the historical public proselytizing of "Objectivists."

Having read Atlas in 1963, and having quickly become a "true believer" along with most other young "Objectivists," it is my judgment, after 52 years of living my life with a reverence for Rand's ideas, that the seeming political impotence of Rand's philosophy - at least as it might have impacted politics, is self-evident. However, that is now significantly changing.

My advice to all is to stop "leading" with our mouths, and instead, lead with your life! An example is worth a million words.

Oh yeah, and get off politics and into morality - without the condescending moralizing. Politics, after all, is simply the manifestation of morality.

Yes, a political phil. without a sound morality to support it - that's one of their problems.

Most people hate objectivity and truth. Libertarians lack principles and are too pragmatic, thus relatively easy to accept.

Correction: I said "more quickly", not quite quickly - big difference. No, I don't view that latter as possible: our culture is far too anti-reason, altruistic and anti-capitalist for that.

It is a wonderful idea but not likely. A few years ago, Gallop or Zogby polled a sample of US citizens and ask them it "self identify" themselves as to party preference: Dem, IND, Rep as well as questions on their Mental health. Apx. Two to one of Liberals said they have issues! conservatives were more than two to one self described as having no mental health issues. Independents were just less than one to one to no problems with mental health.
Thus a self described "dependent" society. They don't believe the can survive in a rational world. They need help!

One thing that will militate against the spread of objectivism is its insistence on atheism. We are not a nation of atheists. We are predominantly a nation of Christians; and few Christians will be willing to embrace atheism, even if they accept everything else objectivism teaches.

Objectivism tries to be a complete philosophical system. Libertarianism is just a political philosophy ie how an individual should works with others, Objectivism also includes how an individual works with self (art, religion, etc) and how an individual works with nature (science),

The spread of Objectivism has actually become popular as is evidenced by the sales of her books especially AS, second only to the bible in influencing people. She definitely wanted it to become popular and commented once something to the effect that it would continue after her death. I also point out this forum exists to promote Objectivism.
The unfortunate aspect is while her books are popular, the novels her other books such as "Philosophy who needs it" do not sell near as well so those who have read AS or TFH do not expose themselves to the nuts and bolts of Objectivism. Or do they buy Leonard Peikoff's book "OBJECTIVISM; the philosophy of AR". But it does get worse and that is we have a dumb down population so quickly spreading Objectivism is just not in the cards.