You would be more accurate, but you aren't trying to create a negative bias about those who resist state control as the statists do about such liberty defenders.

All true objectivists who have a deep desire to rule over others, raise their hands.
.
.
.
.
Anyone?
.
There's your answer.

Good for Reardon,,,,at least in theory

Interesting questions.....

Reform comes from spreading and appealing to correct principles, not by "compromising" with the status quo, endorsing its false premises at every step, and not by expecting people to suddenly turn around because they don't like living in a "flood myth". Being against something does not say what one is for, and "casual reading" of Ayn Rand is not enough and not a means to understand her ideas.

I would suggest the term non-conformists given today's climate and word associations. ;)

I apologize if my words implied you were an apologist. I merely wanted to point out the very real downside of a Trump Presidency.

I would take a look at how "The Donald" got his money. That he was able to parlay a $20 million inheritance into what he has now is a credit to him - or it would be if four bankruptcies weren't the method. He has stolen billions of dollars through those bankruptcies and openly laughed about it. To me, there is no difference between him and the politicians who take money from the unions. It's all legal theft.

If you wanted to talk about a businessman who got his money the right way before turning to politics, I'd make a case for Ross Perot.

Politics is based on more fundamental philosophical principles, but this has practical implications: A better politics cannot be implemented in practice without the proper philosophical ideas spreading through the culture first, not necessarily in full depth to everyone, but enough to establish an intellectual base. It's not enough to have the right ideas yourself and then use them to rush into politics. A small minority with the right ideas cannot suddenly appear and achieve success in politics regardless of what anyone else thinks in the entrenched establishment and the premises of the general culture. Ayn Rand addressed and emphasized this repeatedly.

According to The Journals of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand was interviewed by the New York Times on the day after the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson presidential election. She told them (over the telephone):

"I am not a 'conservative,' but an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. I think that this campaign was conducted very badly, that this is the end of old-fashioned, anti-intellectual 'conservatism'—and that the advocates of capitalism have to start from scratch, not in practical politics, but as a cultural-philosophical movement, to lay an intellectual foundation for future political movements. It is earlier than you think. The status quo of today is a mixed economy with a fascist, rather than socialist, trend—and [Lyndon] Johnson is the conservative in the exact sense of that word. Today, the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, which Sen. [Barry] Goldwater is not, are and have to be radical innovators."

In the Dec 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter she expanded this in an article "It's Earlier Than You Think", in which she wrote in part" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/210/the-...

"Unbelievable as it is, Sen. Goldwater seems actually to have believed that philosophy is a matter of the heart, not of the mind, that ideas are of no importance, and that the most profound ideological conflict in history could be won without recourse to the intellect. He believed, apparently, that the principles of 'the American way of life' were a kind of self-evident primary, clearly understood and firmly entrenched in the souls of the people, and that a few old-fashioned slogans were sufficient to bring them forth. He believed, apparently, that statism and collectivism were merely the corrupt aberrations of a small, inconsequential minority: of the intellectuals-but that the broad masses had remained pure in heart, loyal to their American 'tradition,' and that they needed nothing, in order to save the country, but a chance to rally behind a leader who announced himself as a 'conservative'.

"'Conservatism' is a loose term, embracing many different groups; it cannot be said that Sen. Goldwater represented any one of them. But what he did represent was their common denominator: a folksy, 'cracker-barrel,' mass-oriented kind of anti-intellectual reliance on faith ('the heart') and on 'tradition'. The question, of course, is: what tradition? And since a 'conservative', in the original meaning of the word, is one who seeks to preserve the status quo, the question is: what status quo? The status quo of today is welfare statism, of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist variety. So is the explicit tradition of the past thirty years (and the implicit one of over a century)...

"The political philosophy of America's Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded-because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the 'conservatives' cannot provide...

"This is no time for social metaphysicians, band-wagon-climbers, camp-followers, mystics, 'traditionalists' or any of the shaky amateurs who believed that 'conservatism' is safe, easy or fashionable, and were willing to collaborate with any dubious group so long as it was 'anti-socialist'. This is no time for the 'antis' -- it is a time only for the 'pros', in both meanings of the term.

"The job to be done belongs to professional intellectuals. The battle has to be fought-and won-in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths. Not until a cultural movement is ready to answer such questions ... can the advocates of freedom hope to be heard or understood at the polls."

For more on what Ayn Rand advocated should be done, see especially her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It?, in particular the title essay and the last two essays "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let It Go" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/218/phil... But aside from what one can do, she thoroughly rejected the Libertarian Party as naively a-philosophical, rushing into politics without a philosophical base as it half plagiarized and half contradicted her own ideas. It's failure is there for all to see.

This does not mean that you should not engage in politics at all. That is necessary for survival and self-defense, both personally and for the country. But maintain the context of what is possible, what is needed for more fundamental reform, and the long range time-scale of changing a culture. America was the consequence of the Enlightenment following centuries of intellectual evolution and development overthrowing the established culture of ideas with a new emphasis on reason and individualism. It took hundreds of years for the counter-Enlightenment, and in this country a hundred years of Pragmatism, to overthrow it into today's worsening decline. That will not be reversed overnight and cannot be reversed with only a better minority third political party trying to appeal to people whose fundamental premises have been corrupted.

I look at body of work - not individual bills. Both Cruz and Rand (and Mike Lee) have been thorns in the side of the Republican Establishment. They are the ones who forced McConnell into even more stringent requirements for the latest immigration bill - among others. Look at who filibusters the most in the Senate and you'll find Paul and Cruz at the top of that list. That speaks volumes to me.

I would also point out that there is a certain amount of give and take in negotiations (unless you're a Democrat with the media on your side). That's the reality of politics. We deal with ideology in black in white on this forum. Their world is much more the gray of practicality and compromise. Would we like to see the conversations shift more towards personal liberty? Absolutely. But that is only going to happen in degrees - it isn't going to happen all at once.

Atlas Shrugged never talks about the aftermath of when the big collapse happens. It doesn't talk about the millions of people who die from starvation. It doesn't talk about the looting, rampaging mobs which will descend on and rip cities apart in search of food/water. It likes to pretend that there is a Gulch where the elites can escape and wait for the world to welcome them. Real life is going to be different. When the economy finally gives its last gasp due to debt and taxes, there will be no safe haven for people to run to and hide. Reality is going to come looking for everybody and it's not going to be idyllic like the novel.

So in that recognition and in favor of my own personal welfare and that of my family, I don't want to see a collapse. I don't want to give up and throw my hands in the air with the defeatists who say there is nothing to do but give up and let the end come. So I will choose to support imperfect men and women of character in our Nation's government despite their foibles. Because the alternative is terrible.

I am not an apologist for Donald Trump. All that I have written is to be taken from the point of view of the establishment "money" players. They require a figurehead that can be bought and controlled. Therein lies the unique quality that is embodied in Trump. He is $10B on his own. That is a finger in the eye of the Norquists, the Morgans, the Huntsmans, the Chase family, the Koch brothers, the Rothchilds, and all the other money players. They don't care if it's Hillary or Bush, or any other candidate from their list, they are all controllable. Then there is Trump. I believe he is just as "at risk" as JFK was when trying to wind down Viet Nam.

Yeah, you've hit on the sticking point.
What is essential to government operation never ever really shuts down.
To make news stories, the great and mighty O=0 will shut down White House tours, slam the door to this or that exhibit into the faces of senior citizen veterans or close a wildlife park where animals can still fend for themselves.
The mail still runs.
SS checks keep coming while O scares oldsters by saying they won't.
The military continues to operate.
Forest fires are still fought.
The IRS will still harass Tea Parties.
Ect., etc, etc..........

Probably most important, if we win, will the resulting benefits of our rule be so obvious that everyone will want in?

I would add Ben Carson to that as well as both Rand Paul and even Ted Cruz. None of them are GOP establishment types and they all get talked down to by the leadership of their own party.

"Hillary is just a s good as JEB, Marco, or the others."

To a certain degree, perhaps. The question is how fast we move towards socialism and where we spend our money in the meantime. With Hillary, it's full speed ahead towards despotism. With Jeb!, Christie, Rubio, Kasich, it would be a slower pace.

And I'm not really sure Trump would cause the amount of disruption you say. He talks big, but if you look at the history of his business dealings, they cause me to seriously question him. He's come out and stated he is a big fan of eminent domain in favor of businesses. He doesn't offer much as a reduction in taxes. And he's already said he's a fan of Obamacare. I think Trump is in it because he sees the business deals one can make as a government leader and wants a piece of the action. I can't say I believe he would be a good President.

EVERY innovative product has gone through the Rearden Metal process. Initially, there's no demand at all; no one knows what's there. Then, an early adopter uses it, with outstanding results, beginning a tsunami of acceptance. Then, more and more people use it for purposes not originally imagined. After that, demand explodes. That was the history of the products brought to market by the Robber Barons.

They aren't Objectivist but it is instructive to see how they've fared. In 40 years they've rarely been elected to any office above city mayor. Here in Colorado they've grown dramatically to 32,000 registered voters. But that's out of 3.2 million. It's hard to get elected by promising to do nothing.

From each according to ability to each according to need?

What does it take to form a party? Who's willing to take that on? How many decades before we have a mayor, governor, congressman, president? How do we convince enough people to make a difference? How much compromise will be permissible? Who's going to fund it?....

Perhaps because an Objectivist would look at the laws, mechanics, and history of political parties and conclude that the deck is already stacked, the fix is in, and that an Objectivist political party is not a product he or she could sell due to lack of demand. Politics is a market and follows the same laws of economics as any other market. Despite there possibly being a need for one there is insufficient demand for one.

If I were to compare to something from AS the closest would be Reardon Steel. Objectively the world had a need for the product but it lacked the demand. If not for Dagny seeing it for what it was there would have been no significant production of it.

The reason it became a success was due to the actions of one person with the resources to risk on it. What would the corollary be?

Perhaps if a monarchy or dictatorship were to see the merit and value in an objectivist run country and were to bet the country on having an objectivist or a group of them come in and run the country, the world could be shown the value. But absent that you would have to demonstrate in terms and manner which are incontrovertible that objectivists can run a country better. Assuming you could get any large collection of producers to go into a non-productive field.

Objectivist thinking can't play to people's emotions, only logic. People, on the whole, don't care for logic. It makes "I didn't have choice" and "I couldn't help myself" and "If it wasn't for..." impossible.

The answer is simple. Step one is identifying the problem, step 2 is finding a solution to it, step 3 is enacting said solution. :-)

So... You did steps 1 and 2... carry forward to step 3. If not you, then who?

It's a Rearden problem. The need exists. You see the need. You have a potential solution. Fill the need. :-)