limited patent rights, increased regulations for businesses, environmental sanctions and laws....global warming....
I see these things as a big problem for the Objectivist movement as well

I totally concur. I am from Colorado springs and there would not be one republican vote that affected defense contracts in that town. Or the reduction of 5 military bases and all their duplicate or triplicate machines. Or the car dealers supplying 300 additional law enforcement vehicles just in case he President swings into town (the cars sit in a lot the other 363 days)or the construction equipment owned by the city( a supposed conservative city) which is the largest collection of construction equipment in the state-including private companies. sigh
I will say there aren't enough firemen. and the city parks are looking crappy. But I would have privatized those things anyway.

Here's another addition to your collection concerning the recent discovery about NSA infiltration of online games. Not only trolling, but recruiting informers as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/...

I have been frustrated by this as well. Force is force regardless of perceived good.

mad, they often support with lip service, manufactured rights for minority groups, which they choose and use to control others until they need to control teh minority group-then they either discard or ignore the manufactured right.

Very few persons have taken a logic class and/or studied a rigorous subject. Those persons are liable to not have examined their axioms and therefore are more likely to espouse positions that are contradictory and speak to their unobserved emotions.

good point.

Semi true. Everyone has a philosophy though whether they know it or not. Most people gain their philosophy subconsciously by a mixture of rationalization and cultural pressure. They take bits and pieces from a number of different methods in an eclectic style, which tends to result in a lot of internal contradictions.

I am talking from my experience in business. I often ran into supposed free marketers in the manufacturing sector that espoused continued war in ME for business reasons (I would say "well then, burn down your house so you can provide employment for construction sector; then I went Galt) My whole point is talking about mixed up meaning. It starts with corruption of words and axiomatic definitions that are not checked. This is why I don't have as many friends as I just don't enjoy the company of persons with who talk nonsense.

What you have given is the traditional description of Republicans favoring economic freedom but not social/ political freedom and Democrats the reverse.

However, these days I would say that while that description is still true of "mainstream" Republicans, mainstream Democrats no longer support any kind of freedom.

Look at the Obama administration and their record on illegal wiretapping, violations of privacy on the internet, and drone strikes. And who was it that staged a filibuster over drone strikes? Rand Paul, a Republican.

Today there is a significant minority in the Republican party that does support individual rights, whereas the Democratic Party no longer can even be trusted to support political freedoms.

The acid test of a so-called Objectivist is whether that person is prepared to repudiate both the ethics of altruism and, more tangibly, altruism's political manifestation, its essential, economic-political concomitant: government currency. No "Objectivist" can advocate establishment or perpetuation of the institution of government currency (with its inherent implication of a legal-tender monopoly on what passes as "money"). On the other hand, no "statist" (or confirmed altruist) could envision any other approach to money than the establishment and perpetuation of a government currency

Objectivism of course is not a political party, but doesn't it go without saying that an avowed Republican or avowed Democrat, i.e., a person who actually believes in the platform of either or, cannot be philosophically an Objectivist? Republicans favor capitalism, or so many say, but eschew individual rights, and Democrats, or so many say, favor individual rights and eschew capitalism. And both are pragmatists who spend millions to gain government favors against market forces, espousing pragmatic solutions over principled pursuits. Libertarianism suffers fewer evils than either Republicans or Democratics, but it too embraces principles and approaches that are not Objectivist by any stretch. To me, the challenge is how to apply Objectivist principles in a wildly pragmatic world with mixed philosophies and approaches impacting short-term and long-terms business and personal decisions.

I think that you can be a thing or agree with parts of anything without it becoming the philosophy that drives your entire life. Doesn't make you a troll or necessarily ignorant.

that would not be a "free market" businessman.A free market promoter would vote to limit government's power, which would mean businesses would spend more time focusing on the free market. Capitalism actively promotes for limited government.
I'll do guns and butter if you'd like.

I feel you have a post coming on, danno-

Since capitalism (which is no earlier than Locke), marxism/environmentalism has been much more dangerous to the inhabitants of earth than religion.

I have often wondered if this one reason Rand fell short of accepting Evolution as a scientific theory. She ultimately pointed to man's consciousness. I say she couldn't shake the romanticism on that point and I think that is what you are somewhat expressing and my husband says she was concerned it would be construed as an argument for determinism.
Can we agree on capitalism john?

do you include environmentalists?

"How is it that the universe exists? Objectivism doesn't have an answer for that. "

The answer is clearly binary viz. The Universe was either: A) Created or B) has always existed.

No one to my knowledge has ever proven either to be correct using Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method.

Any assertions of certitude of either case must therefore eschew Reason and Logic which, together, are the bedrocks of Objectivism.

Emotions and Faith are the basis for the Assertion "I am that I am" and cannot be proven. What is your point?

Just end Welfare and immigrant problem will be solved since if no job then no reason to come to America.

The original Capitalists during the enlightenment where AGAINST government sponsored business. Now most think a Capitalist is someone who is in bed with corrupt elements of Government/Wall Street. Similar to how the word "Liberal" became twisted to mean a person who supports Big Government. It is all nonsense now which is why I think a big war is coming.

Yes, the intellectual discussion of religion is huge. I am speaking partly to opening lines of communication. Capitalism is a great place to start that discussion. Objectivists refute religion outright and slam the door in the face of those of faith.
It is still objective to to state capitalism is the best tool for achieving freedom from religion. Even if we win the intellectual battle over religion, we'll look up and see our society is now marxist.. Practically, if I look back on my lifetime, I see that in times where capitalistic freedoms were the focus, prosperity was achieved by more people. In times where civil liberties were more the main focus (focus-not importance), prosperity suffered. If there is no focus on the political in a philosophy, can it thrive? and, if those who are Objectivists can still not see the contradictions in (as an example) supporting regulatory and heavy policing of capitalism-are they not, in effect, opening the door to other losses of liberty? Are they not in contradiction of man as a rational animal and that man is inherently good? Frankly, unlike yourself, I think much of it is due to basic ignorance of economics.and by extension-capitalism. I think Rand said something about how she was proving the moral basis of capitalism but that she did not presume to understand in depth the field of economics. Fair enough-but does that mean Objectivists, now armed with a philosophy of life, shouldn't be all over the science of economics and Objectivism? Where is all that research and academia? I got off topic. Most importantly, I wanted to point out that Objectivists can be lousy at keeping the door open.