The biggest example is libertarians' lack of defense of property rights. dbhalling outlines this in
The Source of Economic Growth by Dale B. Halling.
I would recommend that you PM dbhalling for more details.

http://www.amazon.com/Dale-B.-Halling...

Familiarize yourself withe articles entitled axiomatic concepts and then reexamine your assumption of unprovable "assumptions". Ayn Rand never categorized herself as infallible or a Pope.

I didn't mention faith. I simply pointed out that Ayn Rand's philosophy has no room for any source of knowledge other than science. All possible philosophies start with unprovable assumptions. Ayn Rand's is no exception. It is not possible to develop any philosophy without such assumptions. All philosophies are integrated philosophies. I cannot accept ANY philosophy as absolute truth, but I can accept most of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I guess what you guys are saying is that there is no place for me in objectivism, which proves my point. Objectivism can never prevail. Ayn Rand was not an infallible Pope.

Leonard Peikoff has published a definitive, systematic presentation in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Branden's old basic principles course from before he went off the cliff himself is said by those who were there to have been very useful in clearing up key non-fiction ideas that at the time had not been spelled out in more detail, but that was very early and it didn't get very far for a more inquiring audience.

Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses in the 1970s on Objectivism and the way he related Objectivism to the history of Western philosophy are much better. These are still available, now for free packaged on the web or as inexpensive downloads, from ARI. This was the basis of Leonard Peikoff's more extensive book on Objectivism. They are very interesting and informative. This is the detailed non-fiction basis of any intellectual movement following Ayn Rand.

Objectivism without Ayn Rand? You've got to be kidding.

Only a few decades ago the entitlement mentality was practically non-existent. As the programs go bankrupt and the entitlements disappear a more self reliant approach will reemerge.

This is a pragmatic approach and as such is anti-Objectivisim.

Objectivisim is an integrated philosophy. There is no room for the false method of obtaining knowledge called faith.

Objectivism was the creation of Ayn Rand. It was not derived from historical traditions.

As history has shown any movement is the result of intellectuals leading the charge ( even when their ideas were wrong ). What is meant by " speaking Objectivism faster "? Is there an implication that a majority would agree or simply they would not object if the arguments and policies formulated by Objectivisim were prevalent? Objectivism is spreading rapidly as evidenced by the total rejection and smears of only a few decades ago and the number of people standing up for Ayn Rand today.

Few people consciously reject objectivity and truth as fundamental standards, let alone hate them. They do not, however, understand what they require and why. The intellectual haters are another matter. Most people don't have any idea where the Pragmatism they have absorbed comes from or the irrational philosophical trends that lead to it.

No radically new philosophy can "spread quickly". Fundamentally new ideas that clash with ingrained conventions take time to be spread, understood and adopted. Those who are attracted to Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's philosophy that made it possible should first learn what it is and make sure he understands it before trying to "spread" anything through slogans or half-baked mixtures with conventional baggage either not realized or worse, claimed to be an "improvement" on Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand's so-called "all or nothing approach" regarding her philosophy recognizes that it is an integrated, systematic approach that does not allow for contradictions with its basic principles. Understanding the content and methodology requires time and effort and has nothing to do with side shows of betrayals of personal integrity or malcontents engaging in feuds. To even ask the question, 'would Ayn Rand have wanted her philosophy to become popular?' reveals a lack of understanding of her goals and views on the necessity of changing the philosophy of a culture before it can be changed in practice, which can only be done by understanding the principles and how to apply them, one mind at a time without contradictions and misrepresentations.

I would just ask the question: do you want people who think or do you want sheeple? Thinking takes time and study which most Americans are not willing to invest.

The other thing is that whenever you are trying to win "converts" you are selling something, so you have to be able to identify what exactly it is you are selling and how it is better than the alternatives. You also have to have people who are willing to do the selling and identify what will motivate them to proselyte the message. And I use the word proselyte intentionally. There are only a few philosophies who use a reasoned approach to spread the word of their sects without force and in enough volume to matter: the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are plenty who are willing to coerce, including socialists, fascists, Islam, and others, but I would look to the Mormons and the JW's if you want to find out how to effectively proselyte, as those are two of the fastest-growing philosophical movements in the world.

The other thing you are going to have to do is engage people at least weekly in thought discussions to keep them learning and interested. If this sounds a lot like setting up a "church", it probably is because that's been effective.

PS - I agree with you about the splintering of Christianity being its own worst enemy.

Hey, ewv!

Where is the rest? ;-)

The men behind successful ruling powers generally try to insulate their philosophy, religion or political party from those who would usurp it. Progressivism and Islam have this built in from the outset.

The Progressive favors pragmatism, in which philosophy is held to be unnecessary. The only criterion is "stuff that works." Hence any competing philosophy that comes along can be dismissed as unworkable or impractical. Even the study of philosophy is put forth as having no relation to reality.

Islam simply prescribes death for apostates and unbelievers. Unbelievers who are permitted to live are marginalized and are never part of the power structure.

Objectivists have difficulty selling against faith and force. The battle is fought one mind at a time, while the enemy ropes in whole populations. "You are in the XYZ group. Here is how you behave, vote and think." Or in earlier times, "The King of Norway has converted to Christianity. You are now all Christians."

One mind at a time. It does work. Proof: Why do we find Rand and her ideas so hated?

There is no possibility of any philosophical system being "complete."

If objectivists insist that one must accept atheism to be an objectivist, then objectivist will always be accepted by only a small part of the population and will never have effect on anyone other than objectivists.

I never accept everything that anyone says. One doesn't have to accept everything that Ayn Rand says to find truth in most of what she says. I truly do understand Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, but I reject that knowledge can come only from science. I accept all scientific knowledge. Atheism is not scientific knowledge. Science can say nothing about God's existence or non-existence.

Not certain that Objectivism can or even will spread much beyond its present size. There are so many with their hands out that it will be difficult to overcome the current direction that things are going.

With that bit of negativity out of the way. As a high school teacher I am doing everything in my power to spread Objectivism. I will say that I often feel like Sisyphus pushing against the giant rock that is the Entitlement mentality.

I am not a philosopher, nor am I wise enough to devise a better philosophy. That being said, I would like to point out that Objectivism could spread, but not as Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Brilliant as she was, she was not omniscient, and was not quite on track in certain areas, such aspects of science. However, she was adamant as an Imam believer that everything in her philosophy remains exactly as she has presented it, and no changes were to be made unless she or someone she OK'd made them. This, of course is not possible. Therefore, a new name other than Objectivism needs to be devised, but at the same time making it clear that it derived from Objectivism. Once this is done, Objectivism in its new persona, can be spread. However, I have another caveat. In order for people to understand the philosophy quickly, a basic principles of the philosophy must be written and published and discussed. Personally, I thought Brandon's version of this as a course was quite brilliant, and in book form would present itself to newbies in an appealing form.

"Live and let live" means, to me, exactly the same as "own your life and pursue your own happiness" and "never initiate a use of force".

The problem, as I see it, is in the levels and depths of understanding among the individuals. Do not forget: the statists "hate" and "defame" Objectivists just as much as we return that favor to them.

I do not see much effort to organize Objectivist philosophy essential tenets into something that a below average IQ individual can begin to understand and adopt. In our culture, now, intellectuals are mostly denigrated.

I think philosophy itself is kind of like science in a way. Not everyone really understands the details of physics but they can understand enough to evaluate what the physicists say and use it in their lives. I don't understand newtons laws really, but I accept as a practical matter that objects at rest remain at rest, etc. As to objectivism I may not understand epistemology so much, but it seems ok in practice that I should think and reason things through if I want to be successful in life. I think a LOT of people are like this and the way to reach them is by being more practical than theoretical. A lot of the principles of objectivism are very practical and I think should be promoted that way too. Not just philosophically

At the end of DIM Peikoff makes clear that he believe s we have about 2 generations left to start correcting things; I think less time. I do not believe that our population in general will discover reason anytime soon if ever.

"Hate" in the sense that they consciously reject them as restrictors on their pragmatic/irrational lives.

I believe that Objectivism will spread most rapidly, effectively and sustainably by specifically NOT trying to sell people a new philosophy.

I learned by painful experience in my entrepreneurial career that I will rarely succeed at selling something to somebody for the reasons the I think it is a good idea.

So far we have done a great job of selling Objectivism to ourselves and people already like us, but we have saturated that market. Spending more resources aiming the same sorts of activities at the same sorts of people and organizations is yielding rapidly diminishing returns, which in turn is yielding rapidly diminishing resources.

What if we were to use Objectivist concepts to create practical tools and methodologies in business improvement and personal development (two already massive and still exploding industries) that would enable people to better achieve what they currently already want - better happier more fulfilling lives and relationships and more productive, higher performing more profitable businesses and careers?

I call this "Stealth Objectivism", and I have been doing it for 15 years in my executive and enterprise coaching work. Minus the nomenclature, people remain open minded to concepts they might otherwise resist or reject (in the form of Objectivism), and in trying the tools and achieving the results they value, their thinking begins to evolve and their worldview begins to transform - without them realizing it except in retrospect.

The icing on the cake is that people and business would be actually paying us for the services and products we create (perhaps, quite lucratively)!

My talk at the Atlas Summit addresses this both directly and indirectly, as well as presents a tool such as ones of which I speak.