It is true that Ayn Rand's challenge of 2500 years of philosophy cannot become dominant 'overnight' and that 60 years has not been anywhere near enough, especially with Pragmatism and its politics of Progressivism dominating secular thought in the name of "science".

But you don't have to eradicate (meaning intellectually, not by force) Christianity, just remove it from dominant influence of its false premises. Not everyone in a society has to be Objectivist to establish and maintain a dominantly free political system. The Enlightenment emphasized reason and individualism, largely rejecting the mystic mentality of religion, but did not eradicate it. Nor did it provide a rational ethics of egoism even though that was implicit in the principle of a right to one's own life, liberty, property and pursuit of one's own happiness. It lead to a political philosophy of freedom and limited government power, but couldn't hold it against the onslaught of explicit altruism and collectivist ethics. More is required than the Enlightenment provided, but it doesn't have to be everyone Objectivist.

There are, or at least used to be, many American secularized Christians with mixed ideas who would not fight limited government, but they cannot institute one as long as they take the premises of mysticism and altruism seriously, and could not defend it based on the essential supernaturalism, mysticism and sacrifice at the root of Christianity and pushed throughout the Dark and Middle Ages. And reversion to Bible-thumping is a bad sign.

Quoting your own switch in emphasis from "will always be" to "any time soon" is not manipulation. The difference does matter. Statism is not inevitable. It depends on the dominant philosophy. As I said, "There are always criminals and power seekers. They do not dictate a social system without general acceptance of false premises of altruism, collectivism and statism."

While I am not religious, I expressed hope that there was a way to implement Objectivist principles without having to eradicate religion, especially Christianity, but I was convinced by an authority on the subject that it was not to be. I think this is what makes it so hard. They have had, arguably 2017 years to establish altruism and Ryan has only had since 1957.

I will respectfully disagree. For a finite percentage of the population like the Nicolas Maduros of the world, there is an "innate attraction to enforcing their wills over other people that will always be". I challenge you to name a time in history when there was no such enforcer in the world. There has not been such a time, and there never will be. There will always be enforcers of collectivism and statism. This is consistent with the very correct statement that "nature abhors a vacuum".

I was consistent, despite your word manipulation (as usual). The choice of using the colloquialism of not "going away any time soon" was properly used. Such premises won't go away in our lifetimes; beyond that, it doesn't matter.

Invoking religious slogans and the Bible is not rational discussion. This is an Ayn Rand forum. The two most certainly are mutually exclusive.

Slavery directly impacted a minority of people, mostly in part of the south. As he wrote, "it did not threaten to destroy the entire civilization by eliminating liberty, free markets, and private ownership of property". Slavery contradicted the principles on which the civilization was based, which is why it was overthrown. If the basic principles had been reversed, as they are today, it would have been such a threat.

Where is collecting rain water controlled?

There are primitive tribalists still eeking out an existence in Africa and South America. Their self-imposed bondage to the 'ethnic' tribe is not independence.

This is an equivocation between intellectual independence and political freedom.

Blarman sounds like proselytizing for religion because that is what he is. He is anti-Objectivist.

Some individuals around Ayn Rand sometimes behaved rudely; they were not a "cult". Spreading better ideas is not proselytizing for a religion.

Ayn Rand did not "cancel subscriptions" for asking "improper questions". Belligerent, rude and snide attackers were rejected for what they were and ignored. We still see some of these personal antagonists against Ayn Rand as a handful of malcontents lingering around a half century later. It isn't what this forum is for.

The militant religionist is back 'downvoting' rejection of arbitrary religious pronouncements trying to equate knowledge with faith. There is no duty to "respect" anything without regard for what it is, and education is not "guessing" or acceptance on "faith".

You said "will always be", then switched to "any time soon". The point is that people choose (or accept by default) their own philosophical premises. There is no innate "attraction to enforcing their wills over other people" that "will always be".

Very little especially in America where there are millions of regulations, taxes, licenses that are never voted upon by the legislature which is aa body not imbued with the idea of freedom either. I once gave an example of freedom to my children; I told them that in Iraq (20 years ago) they drafted young men into the military by driving down the street and grabbing any young man that appeared to have the ability to do the required tasks, threw him in the back of a truck and he was a soldier that had to kill people on command. In the second scenario the country would send the young men a nice letter telling them they must report for duty or explain why? The young man could complain, even contest the involuntary servitude but if he failed to convince the state he must still appear or he would be forcibly arrested and sent and would have to kill anyone the state deemed an 'enemy'. If he failed in his duties he would be imprisoned. In which state is a man free? Neither they replied. One may take longer and 'appear' to be polite while making the same demands. I said right, the second example is America.

As long as there is a progressive income tax in the US there is no fairness in the marketplace.

Frankly, I'd rather give my husband my income than someone else's husband who is going to distribute it to someone else. Just speaking as the woman who is a high earner and gets punished because of it.

"While what you cite is certainly not fair, the way society is today is far more dependent for and restrictive to each individual. "
I think society has gotten fairer, but I'm actually talking about freedom: the right to make money in a mutual exchange, keep that money for your use, use the money to travel where you want to. I'm saying in many ways society is much freer, even in the areas of keeping your money and traveling without harassment by the authorities. We obviously have a long way to go yet though.

"you could separate yourself or create your own place to sustain yourself,"
You could go West back then. I long for a West. When I am flying over a remote region like Greenland or the Rockies, it stands out how the vast majority of the Earth is undeveloped. But it's all under the control of nation states. Even with how small the world as become, it looks vast, and I wonder how many people are living in tiny communities or nomadic tribes off the grid.

"[Slavery] did not threaten to destroy the entire civilization by eliminating liberty, free markets, and private ownership of property."
It wasn't a threat but it was already-existing lack of liberty, free markets, and property rights. For most of human history people were ruled by tribes and after agriculture by divine right of kings. I don't expect them to have nailed it in the first century they tried to build a real democratic republic based on theory. I'm similarly not surprised we haven't nailed it today.

I do not at all understand the idea of slavery not being a threat to liberty. Slavery is the opposite of liberty.

Example, collect rain water.

There is a difference between fairness and freedom CG. And there are exceptions to every character generalization (we wouldn't be here otherwise). While what you cite is certainly not fair, the way society is today is far more dependent for and restrictive to each individual. So there is no escape and very little alternative. back then you could separate yourself or create your own place to sustain yourself, can you do that today? If so, where?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"To believe we have as much freedom as that time is wishful thinking."
I would certainly never say everything is better now. We send a third of our income (nearly half for some people) to the gov't. Today's surveillance and restriction on guns and drugs would have been unthinkable 100 years ago.

OTOH, the same person who is free to follow her dreams and go work on autonomous drones or whatever it is might not have been allowed to follow her dream in 1900, just on account of her physical appearance. That's huge. If she can't get into the meetings because of her skin color, and most people agree because of her sex she should be a teacher until she finds a husband, she'd probably do anything to get to a place where work on transatlantic voice telegraph but half to give up a third of what she makes.

We don't have to choose between the two time periods, and I suppose since there's no time machine choosing isn't even an option. I want that hypothetical person 100 years from now to be working on her ultra-light strong-but-not-brittle material in Tycho Crater where the whole nano-fiber ecosystem is springing up thanks to the low-G environment and non-intrusive Lunar gov't. That sounds insane, but today's world would sound insane to the 1900s would-be-engineer housewife living in a country with the same GDP as Argentina, where trains and telegraph are high tech, and where it goes without saying she's a second-class citizen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++'s

"...the name sake of this web site AYN RAND was as free as can be because NOBODY could control her. she did as she pleased her whole life and set an example that in my opinion should be followed by all who chose to follow her. I proudly say I have to the best of my ability. a free mind can not be caged."

With reason as the bedrock.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++'s