Could it have something to with the fact that Objectivism is still a "minarchist" and therefore ultimately statist - anti NAP - philosophy?

why would we not concentrate on the 100 of thousands who are actually buying the books instead?

Objectivism is a philosophy for alpha personalities and not everyone is an alpha. The world is full of beta's, gamma's, delta's, and even epsilons to use the hierarchy of Huxley. Most people find thinking for themselves difficult and tedious. Humanity is an odd mixture of herd beasts and the occasional individual. The herd members find comfort in the collective and are all too willing to leave original thought to others.

And you point is?

Making changes to the post system will be helpful.

On reddit (on which this site is based), whenever someone replies to your comment, you get a message in you account inbox (NOT your email address). I think this should be implemented, otherwise there's no way to know if someone replied to your comment. Opening hundreds of links manually everyday is tedious.

Also, the poll if you want it.
strawpoll.me

Not what I meant, Zen. The process of accepting the philosophy of reason in general (Objectivism) has a lot in common with the process of recognizing that reason should be the method used to analyze politics. To me, GOP voters have great potential for reason. But I may be misjudging them.

Oh, I know what the Constitution says. One of the amendments changed that, though. It was the one where the Senate now becomes elected by a popular vote. That was the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy.

A hopeless 'whistle in the wind' indeed.

The Constitution defines our gov't as a Republic, not a Democracy. It's obvious that was unalterably changed by Lincoln, then Wilson, then FDR, and finished up by Johnson. But Democracy will never support laissez faire or Objectivism. That is a hopeless 'whistle in the wind'.

In a republic, having a majority of the producers appreciate Objectivism's essential elements of life, as you defined earlier above, may be sufficient. In a democracy, Objectivism's essential elements of life would have to be appreciated by a majority of voters. Arguably, it was this way in America for quite a while, but no longer.

I would put myself into the latter category.

Well said, Zenphamy. I appreciate the thought that went into your response. I was just about to hit reply with a rather lengthy response myself, and then ... the power went out, an event worthy of AS: Now Non-Fiction. ;)

free; Objectivism will not be spread or accepted by political/democratic vote. That's a contradiction.

Excellent observation, free.

jim; My response is longer than it ought to be, but your question is extremely important.

Your life and work depend on objective observations and reasoning about the facts of reality, yet I venture to say that in any class you might teach, some 30 to 40% of your students may well believe in and would argue for Creation. And some percentage might even believe that Creation happened some 5,000 yr ago. I would almost bet that 50% or more believe in Human causes of climate change threatening all life on Earth. I'll further venture that if you ask if any would be interested in taking a course or studying philosophy along with their science and technical studies, that a majority would question 'why they should waste their time with that nonsense.'

During my life, I've been involved in discussions with people from every educational level and every career path I can think of, about the objective facts of reality, cause and effect, morality and the principle of morals, and etc., etc. ad infinitum. (on and on) There are a few responses or arguments that arise in those discussions that really 'piss me off'.
Perception is reality (No it isn't--reality is reality and perception is manipulated and based on beliefs),
Well, that's just not fair (Life and reality don't care about your perceptions and beliefs about fair),
We're just lucky to have been born here (No, if we'd been born somewhere else we wouldn't be we. We'd be someone else with some other parents),
We've progressed far enough that we don't need the 2nd Amendment for personal defense any more (There's no evidence that humans have evolved past what we were 100,000yrs and our history and daily news tells us that we still need weapons),
That instrument reading can't be right. Let's check the instrument before we shut down the system/equipment (That instrument is intended to protect the system/equipment/your life. If the instruments right, things are going to blow up while you're checking it)
That guns unloaded and safe (Let me aim it at your foot and pull the trigger just to check)
Those are a few, but they should get the point across.

Human beings aren't born inherently knowing how to logically reason and reach objectively rational conclusions. They are born with the equipment, including average intellect, to be able to, but only after they've been taught by others or learned through experience or developed exceptional observational skills based on unquenchable curiosity. So, I'm not that surprised (though disappointment is a constant) Objectivism is not readily accepted or understood by the majority and I've pretty much come to realize that it never will be, any more so than any other reality of a life that is.

I don't think AR's message implied that everyone must understand or accept Objectivism. I think it was that the producers of the race need to be taught or realize that achievement, acting in self interest, freedom, self confidence, and pride in self are essential elements of the life that is instead of the life that might or ought to be, and that can only happen through the efforts of self.

It is not so important that everyone or anyone else agree. It is important that I remain true to my principles and factual reality.

Where are the hordes of objectivists from the millions of young AS readers? I'd love to communicate with them about creating a real Gulch.

I had the same discussion with deanstriker earlier. Quite right, freedom.

As you have seen here, jb, that is not the attitude of several vocal objectivists here in the Gulch and from the Atlas Society.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I agree with the party that borders should be defended and against more than just armed invasion.

Regarding "However, I have to ask what you mean by '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.', please let me clarify." This is one of those statements that would have been much easier understood if it had been heard, rather than read.

I agree with many, but not all, of both Objectivism's foundational ideas and conclusions, but I disagree with a few of them as well. This means that I do not consider myself an Objectivist. Most people in this forum, most notably ewv yesterday, definitely would say I am not an Objectivist.

Let us say for sake of argument that based on a first principles approach to developing my own philosophy, I arrive at a philosophy in which I agree with 90% of Objectivism's tenets and conclusions. Does this mean that I am an Objectivist? No, not really. On the other hand, does it mean that I cannot have very high respect for Rand's work? No, once again. I have very high respect for Rand's work. What comes out most frequently during these sorts of debates is the 10% that I disagree with.

Some may debate this, but I think the most important element in any philosophy is that it not contradict itself. A philosophy for life on earth must allow me to live a life of non-contradiction and be happily self-satisfied when I am consistent with my own principles of production and virtue. I have achieved that. Rand's novels have helped me refine what some of the contradictions I did not know I had, but now I have achieved the happiness from production and virtue that should be the just reward for my effort and intelligence.

Some people in this forum may think that I just want validation for what I already believed, but I have spent my entire life (mostly as a kid as you correctly point out) deriving a philosophy from basic principles and reasoning to a conclusion. Mostly now, I am checking my premises. Every couple of years I do a thorough re-examination from first principles. Last summer was such a time.

As for The Great Schism, your points are well taken, but I see evidence of why it occurred here in Galt's Gulch Online (GGO). According to some Gulchers, if you do not follow Objectivism to the finest dotting of i's and crossing of t's, then you are a heretic and should be expelled. The ideologically impure in GGO have grown tired of defending philosophies that they themselves have derived from first principles. This is the most important reason why the Gulch has become boring. With the exception of the last few days, it has become an echo echo echo echo echo chamber.

Not without a strategy and tactics to overcome the distractions, fear mongering, and the never ending propaganda. The coming election will likely be no different than the past 14 in spite of the obvious betrayal by the GOP. If we can't convince the libertarians who vote GOP repeatedly to see through the facade, how will objectivism expand?

I agree, there's way more to Objectivism than thinking. But one could not be one without doing it. :)

Good song choice!

Regarding which people, I am referring to those in the general population.

Both my kids and I were required to read Anthem in high school. It may be like when Christianity absorbed the Roman Empire that persecuted it, but if that doesn't happen in my lifetime, was it worth my effort? It could easily be said that such an effort would be living my life for someone else.

Again, I must ask: Which people do not accept change? You are speaking only of adults. In point of fact, Objectivism was, is, and will remain a philosophy for the young. They have no vested interest in preformed judgements. They are looking for truth. Adults want - and indeed deserve - validation for their hard work. But adults come with baggage. Kids are unencumbered. And they change quickly. How quickly? My daughter has a mole on her hand and when she was growing, she would show me how it moved as her hand changed. You don't get that with adults -- or if you do, you see an oncologist... Kids are all about change. Revolution is for the young.

Are you sure, Mike? Such people voted (a decision that mattered) for Obama twice and are now lining up behind Bernie Sanders. A few more years in this direction, and America will be like Greece.

You are confusing two different phenomena. The dynamics of Ayn Rand's "collective" (including the Barbarians softball team) have not much to do with the wider world today. Two generations have found the ideas knowing nothing of the Great Schism. If people disagree, they do.

However, I have to ask what you mean by "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." Can you be more explicit in Step 2? How can someone not accept a foundational idea of Objectivism and still be an Objectivist?

As for the "conclusions" I point out that while Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook disagree on immigration, they agree on metaphysics and much else. Moreover, their disagreement is always for both them founded on basic principles of Objectivism. Not everyone on either side of that discussion is so consistent.

In that discussion (as in most others, I assert), people have a belief first and argue it second. Few people - few adults - begin with basic principles and reason to a conclusion. Kids do it because they are, indeed, seeking truth. Adults just want validation for what they already believe.

And that can be OK. You hear it often: "When I read the book, it said exactly what I have always believed all these years." So, that's fine. But when Objectivism has some fact that is contrary to their lifelong beliefs, then they take what they want and leave the rest. And that is better than nothing, but, as you must admit, they cannot be "Objectivist, except for where..."

Finally, as for The Great Schism, it had nothing to do with ideas and mostly to do with personalities. Proof of that is Ayn Rand's lifelong friendships with Bennett Serf and Ludwig von Mises. They did not accept her philosophy. (Mises accepted laissez-faire, of course, but was a Kantian. Rand called Kant, not Marx, her greatest enemy. Yet, she was friends with von Mises.) So, whether and to what extent some Objectivists refuse to speak to other Objectivists is mostly a matter of personality. It has nothing to do with the subject matter.