Why so hostile to my original premise? And why so slavish to the idea that man can achieve anything communal? Never, in the history of man, has he ever done or built anything for himself, by himself, without the sacrifice of others' work... often without recompense. It would be wonderful if he could... and would. The place Thomas More wrote of, namely, Utopia, literally means "no place." I appreciate Rand, appreciate what she teaches... WANT what she teaches. But reality keeps bringing me back to reality. How can a man be free, truly free, when forces align against him, seeking to take away, and/or destroy him?

My simple response to this discussion was, he CAN'T. Freedom to pursue ones own designs, ones own fortune, ones own ends, owing no man anything means nothing to the Kim Jong-Un's of the world, who will ever seek to make you pay for their purposes. Man cannot live peacefully with his neighbors, for very long.

Even America in its infancy was a far cry from what Rand saw as ideal (reiterating: I, too, view it as ideal!). Freer than we are today, but the original question was "...What will it take to achieve complete individual freedom and how many generations?" And the answer I gave offended you - as it plainly did. It was not my intention to do this. But what has reason achieved us in the realm of personal freedoms other than the freedom found in death? Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, to say nothing of Islam today? War, and rumors of war persist to this day, and reason has fallen short to change the world. How many generations to achieve individual freedom? No honest answer is going to satisfy this discussion.

I do not seek to proselytize here, nor have I. Your aversion to the mere mention of religion is irrational.

Even if that freedom lands you in prison. You're right

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

I accept both the philosophy of Rand, and Jesus

The only militant aspect is your hostility to reason

There is no wrong place. Only a wrong time.

I haven't thumped a single Bible. And I can't argue with the rest, except to say Christianity is subject to the same pressures society is. For centuries the bible was chained to the pew.. 'can't have those pesky Christians taking home and reading it for themselves.' There's your dark ages. Even today in Christianity there are forces that want to bend, distort, and rewrite its essential message. Accept for Judaism, you don't see this phenomenon in other religions. Why destroy or distort ONLY Christianity.

I firmly believe Objectivism, at it's core, is not incompatible with religious beliefs. If it's eradication of religion you seek, Objectivism then, is no better than Communism, or Islam, for that matter. Objectivism becomes your god; your religion. A religious objectivist, especially one who prays, will live longer, more fulfilled lives. Altruism, while wonderful, can't be legislated, any more than an 'Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule.' You can't make people buy Obamacare, even though you legislate it. Any more than you can "Repeal" an entitlement once folks have gotten used to it. Not without a lot of kicking and screaming by those who benefit...... and vote.

I know what kind of forum it is, and, if Ayn Rand were true to her self, I believe she'd have to concede that even 'religionists' have a place here, though their answers Miss Rand might not espouse herself.

The question was "What will it take to achieve complete individual freedom ..." If history has shown us anything it's that man cannot get along with each other. Stephen King, wrote in his book "The Stand," commenting on social structures, that (paraphrasing) 'a society of two can be peaceful, if unfulfilling; add a third and they'll invent hierarchies; four, and they'll invent prejudice; five, and they'll invent war." In order for the premise of this discussion to ever come to pass, man would have to deny his nature, which he can't. The very fact that I introduced Jesus Christ into the discussion is proof enough of that.

My point being, and I mean no disrespect, is that Man cannot live is peace on this earth, or any earth. And you need peace for all the glorious things we, as free individuals and thinkers, can achieve, individually and corporately. Casting an opinion aside because it smacks of religious tropes and slogans, is exactly the kind of "free thinking" that has given us the world we live in. I'm not trying to proselytize anyone here.,, just pointing out the obvious, quoting historical figures, consulting an ancient text, and wondering why my point isn't seen as 'obvious.'

Look at the poor... Jesus said, "the poor will always be with you..." Ayn Rand has been absolutely correct about a lot of things actually, but most especially Man's need to control others, and on the flip-side of that, to take from others: not you, not me, but those people do exist. They exist to take what is yours, what you built, what you thought, what you have harnessed, and give either to themselves (if they're honest about it) or to others.... the poor; those who either can't (and few there are of this sort), or won't work in their own best interest, and those of their families..

Even religious slogans can bear truth. And because a few 'slogans' get bandied about doesn't negate their truths...

I could give you my whole speech about Cultural Literacy and the importance of being very well versed in this regard adds to our communication and understanding, but I won't. It's relevant to my argument, but I won't belabor the discussion further.

Thanx!