More political?

And most libertarians have no idea that their party is abandoning those principles. I know I didn't until I joined Galt's Gulch.

Those books look like interesting reads. Many people (hundreds per year) adopt some of my practices. It is easy to include incorporate "value for value" into my classes. To go into some of the other aspects of Objectivism could easily be considered an abuse of my position as a faculty member at a non-tenure-granting university.

The progressives/statists focused on the academic realm in the early 1900s. If Objectivists don't try to take that over, it will be hard to achieve a massive spread of Objectivism. As I am sure you know, I am not ideologically pure on Objectivism, but that sort of infiltration seems the most reasonable path. I agree that is a long way off. Proceeding by a different path opens Objectivism up to the same ideological dilution that libertarianism is suffering from right now.

Very well summarized.

Yes, and they're abandoning principles like wadded up burger wrappers along their path.

Indeed!

j; I think Objectivism is spreading--maybe not as fast as we'd all like. But there are certainly two separate groups with separate priorities.
One is the ivory tower philosophers wanting purity and acceptance of the philosophy as a confirmed Academic level topic, maybe even, the predominant subject of philosophy. I don't want to argue against that in any way. I support it, but that is a long way off.

But the second, of which I count myself, are livers of Objectivism that would wish for a broader dissemination of the essence, practicalities, morals, liberty, and rights -- a way of living and looking at the world around us that can be accepted and made useful, even without the levels of education I see in most of the members of The Gulch.

But we, both camps, certainly face a steep hill. Socialists, statists, progressives, and conservatives (both ultra-right religionists and the every day common) have erected significant barriers both in academia, psychology, sociology, education, politics, finances, just about every aspect of everyday human life. And right now, libertarians certainly are not helping us as they work to accept ever broader spectrums of political thought under their umbrella. Liberals are slavering at their gates and even gaining inroads in some areas. The anarchists and agonists are having their own degree of sway.

Excellent question! To keep us focused on the positive, I'm sure it can be spread FASTER. I've got a number of tools, strategies, resources, and tactics to help. But by its nature we need to have perspective and context for what FAST means and is possible.
I've become a diligent student of societal and organizational change, innovation, and marketing (after feeling too frustrated and stuck in my technical career). There are some great lessons from authors like Dan & Chip Heath, Malcolm Gladwell, and Seth Godin. One intro here: http://buildingabrandonline.com/engin...
One nugget I would leave is that each of us has the opportunity (responsibility?) to be an ambassador and champion for the cause. How many people are inspired and motivated to learn about or adopt Objectivism because they know and interact with you?

I agree with you also here. But it's also tied to the fact that Objectivism is a complete philosophy. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. They aren't an equal comparison.

I agree that Objectivism is the tougher sell. Perhaps the better way to word that would have been to say that libertarianism is more tolerant, probably sacrificing (word chosen intentionally) its values somewhat in exchange for tolerance and size of the movement.

My impression is that most people hate Objectivism more than libertarianism. Objectivism explicitly condemns both altruism and religion, while libertarianism doesn't (at least explicitly), Objectivism is the tougher sell.

Yes, Locke does say that but he says that is no longer necessary because of money. I think it is fair to update Locke. Ultimately, both of them thought property rights were based on creation and I think that is the key point.

Compare that with Hume and the Austrian's position on property rights.

There seems to be no way to reconcile Locke's relativism and Rand's absolutism as to property. Locke in his first Treatise wrote "...in a state of nature, the needy have a right to the '[s]urplusage of their fellows."

Rand's position was:

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."
Ayn Rand Lexicon

Do you see a way around their divergent positions?

I have two suggestions for how to spread Objectivism faster.

1) Show the connections between Locke, the founding of the US, the Enlightenment and Objectivism. I think Rand does herself a disservice when she detaches herself from the historical traditions from which objectivism is derived.

2) The idea of closed objectivism needs to die an immediate death.