A very good insight, Mike. I think we are an active minority. Are we big enough and/or active enough to change a culture, or perhaps neither?

I have to point out, as above, that passive majorities do not change cultures: active minorities do. You can find the works of Ayn Rand for sale all over the world.

I disagree. Those people do not make decisions that matter. You do need to consider them.

Which people are we talking about?

People will not change their ideas. People will not question what they believe. Etc. Etc., Kids do it all the time. That is why Ayn Rand's ideas are most easily accepted by teenagers. Look at the contests in the ARI website. Winners come from Catholic schools. Do you imagine that they are being taught Objectivism there?

As we passed in algebra classes coming in and going, a friend of mine handed me Anthem. I did not get it from a teacher.

As I said, I met a financial manager who just discovered Atlas Shrugged and was interested to hear about CUI and VOS. So, yes, adults find out about Objectivism, also. But, mostly, it is kids.

That is why the ideas continue to sell generation after generation. The next generation comes to them. It's gonna be like when Christianity absorbed the Roman empire that persecuted it.

The Objectivist Party platform recognizes a nation's right to defend its own borders as a corollary to the right of an individual to defend oneself.

Yes, good point ;^)
i was referring to the insistence in several objectivist postings here that open borders are de rigueur Objectivism.
As a practical matter open borders are the fairy tale today.

For the record, Objectivism asking people to accept too much change is not why I have not embraced Objectivism. That is freedomforall's opinions why the general populace has not embraced Objectivism. This is a type of subjectivism, as MichaelAarethun calls it. What both of you say is reasonable. This is certainly part of the answer.

Thinking for yourself is a requirement for Objectivism, but it is insufficient. I would agree that people on this site think for themselves. BTW "Think for Yourself" by the Beatles is in my top ten songs. I just played the song from my complete Beatles CD set.

I agree, Mike, objectivism has not been accepted by a majority here. It may be admired by a majority here.

Are immigration controls a whim or a fairy tale?

I would count myself among those who have not embraced Objectivism wholeheartedly. Regarding the Heisenberg discussion, I know enough quantum mechanics to know how to interpret scanning tunneling microscope images, and yet I still am uncomfortable with some aspects of quantum mechanics. Regarding such topics, some of the reason why such discussions are brief is that people are uncomfortable discussing anything in here that they are not rock solid on (and perhaps with good reason).

I like the idea of your poll. You can either start your own thread, or add it within this thread. Suit yourself. The poll ought to consist of at least two questions.
1) Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? 2) Would others in GGO consider you an Objectivist? Other questions might be merited as well.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, personally I don't believe the vast majority of people even think about philosophy in general. To many people life is all about having fun and philosophy requires serious thinking. If they did consider philosophy, I cannot help but believe more people would consider themselves Objectivists.

I know there are a some on this site that think most people even in this gulch are not really Objectivists but I disagree. I believe most of the people on this site are thinking for themselves, making their own decisions based on their own beliefs which I believe is the first criteria in being objective. I don't agree with all of them but that doesn't make them less objective in my opinion. My 2 cents.

Indeed, Ayn Rand's works have been read by many. Her influence is wide. Your example of Paul Ryan is a good one. He recognizes Ayn Rand's influence on his life, but he wouldn't call himself an Objectivist. Those in this forum would not call him an Objectivist either. If Ayn Rand were trying to catch fish, she would get lots of bites, but not catch very many fish. Before anyone tells me that catching fish was not her objective, I do know that was not her objective.

You contend that Objectivism is widely accepted. In a way, you are correct, but most Objectivists do not recognize agreement with some of Objectivism's conclusions and even many of its foundational ideas as being sufficient to be an Objectivist. AR certainly was quite ready to reject people who were not consistent with Objectivism exactly as she defined it.

Interesting opinion, freedom. Objectivism asks people to accept too much change to what they have "known" to be true. I'll have to ponder that one.

Well said, random.

I am asking this regarding the population at large. This is a not a criticism of Gulchers.

Because it triggers their blank-outs.

Seriously though, I think people are more comfortable letting others think for them, and never try to come to their own conclusions. They don't think it has any effect on their life, and hence it makes them very indifferent towards it. They've been taught that Ethics and Philosophy are for "The Elite" (whoever that might be).

Also, most books on Obejctivism are rather largeand require you to question conventional notions, and people think it as a chore to read them. Most people I've met proudly state that they think Ayn Rand is "Stupid, for children, and if you like it you're an Idiot too". Most of them state that they never completed Atlas Shrugged, that they drifted while reading because it was so boring, and most give up when they see how large Galt's speech is.

I've heard people scrutinizing The Fountainhead , stating that it is too Idealistic, and the Roark is a fool.

They act in the exact fashion Ayn Rand said such people would, and the irony goes over their heads.

Objectivism is not understood by a majority of people anywhere, and many who understand do not agree.
I think this is because objectivism asks people to accept too much change to what they have "known" to be true.
I agree with you, jb.
Objectivism offers no compromises, no concession to practical matters.
That is to be admired but, imo, that is a primary reason it has not and will not be accepted.
If Jefferson and Adams had insisted that slavery be abolished in the colonies in 1776, the American revolution would not have occurred and America may not have existed at all. Slavery was obviously wrong, but what was right was ignored at that time.
Objectivism has yet to make a successful strategic plan or to derive the tactics needed to practically overcome generations of learned "truth." People do not easily or quickly adapt to change until it is unavoidable.

In my admittedly very limited exposure, Rand has virtually no following overseas. Those that have heard of Rand do not understand what she wrote. But hardly anyone overseas understands why all Americans aren't jumping at the chance to give up guns and be socialists.

To clarify, are you asking this based on people participating on this site or of all people everywhere?

And on another note, I submit that Objectivism has not been "accepted" by the majority of people here. If you want to be popular in the Gulch start a discussion like "Muslim-Marxist Obama Hates America." If you want to be ignored, use the word "epistemology" in any post. Some people here have tried launching discussions like that.They go nowhere.

Metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics are totally ignored. We give some attention to ethics and the bulk of our thinking to current political events.

One point outlying from the curve was dhalling's recent discussion about Heisenberg. We have a lot of engineers here and, hey, who doesn't like science? Grant that ewv and dhalling held closest to the canon of Objectivism and you have like two out of twenty. I believe that I, too, am an Objectivist in the technical and formal sense. They would disagree. But it only makes three. Did I miss someone?

Perhaps we should have a poll. Find out how many people here actually consider themselves Objectivists, as opposed to "having been influenced by Ayn Rand."

My perception is that Objectivism has, indeed, been widely accepted. And it continues to expand. If you count the number of books sold, it is easy to place the tally of people who were "influenced" by Ayn Rand at about 40 million.

We have to take into account the fact that many are like Paul Ryan: they like "some ideas" but are not consistent. I met two others this week: one an investment counselor who just discovered the book; the other a retail clerk in college who found it "interesting even though I don't agree with all of the ideas."

The best of all worlds might be one wherein billions of Leonard Peikoffs refuse to speak to billions of David Kelleys. ... or it might not be... What makes capitalism, freedom, and individualism possible is the very existence of all those differences that define us as individuals.

Not everyone in Athens was a philosopher. Not everyone in Florence was l'uomo universale. Not everyone... or even "most"... Cultures are not defined by masses of people, who in reality are pretty much the same. In the 300s CE, Christian writers berated people for wearing coins of Alexander the Great as good luck charms, as they had been doing for 600 years. They still do today.

But the latest Pew polls show that about 20% of Americans an non-religious, irreligious, or anti-religious. In other words, compared the mid-1950s, not only have we stopped going to church, we don't mind admitting it.

Silicon Valley was a direct result of the widespread awareness of the ideas of Objectivism by millions of people who did not accept it as their literal-to-the-book philosophy, but, rather - and more consequentially, I say - as their sense of life. These (we) are technically competent people who refuse to apologize for their ability. It is an axiom in computering that you cannot bullshit the computer: the bit is on or the bit is off. Either-or: A or non-A, as some would say.

My daughter never read an Ayn Rand book, sad to say. Not that I did not try, since the day she was born. ("Hey diddle diddle, the excluded middle means that A is not non-A. It's either-or and neither-nor and A is always A.") I tried... but for some reason, she watched the movie of Atlas Part I and I was not surprised that she identified with Dagny. ("I would never force a man to do anything, but the train is going across the bridge if I have to drive the damned thing myself.") Is she an Objectivist? No. Has she been "influenced" by Ayn Rand? Apparently so, and it shows in how she arranges her place of work, and how she deals with city inspectors, and all the rest.

And I submit that her narrative is echoed 40 million times every day, mostly in America, buy globally as well.