Speak for yourself on what you claim to find when you "scratch andy person" and the claim of a supposed innate sub-reason animal essence beneath a mere "veneer of reason" by nature.

"Conflict of interest" as described by Ayn Rand does not mean that people don't have different goals or ideas on how to attain them. It has nothing to do with an intrinsicist notion of "perfect".

The principle is explained her essay The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests
in the Virtue of Selfishness. A-philosophical libertarian subjectivists can't help.

Rational action is great when it works, but you simply can't count on anybody staying that way. Scratch any person and you'll find an animal, with a thin veneer of reason on top at best.

And even between two "perfect" objectivists or libertarians, there are conflicts of interest, because being a "perfect" [either] doesn't mean you see everything exactly the same way as another "perfect" [either].

You are right that violent conflict is not determined and unavoidable as "human nature". Government and police with objective law is necessary to know what is not permitted and to enforce the rights of the individual as an implementation and specification of general principles of rights -- not because people will "innately" be violent. The form of implementation is optional to some degree, but must be justified and objectively specified no matter how reasonable people are. But such a system can only exist if you already have a rational culture, even though some minority of people would choose to stray from it. It has nothing to do with innate tendencies and tribal size of 150 or anything else.

The necessity of government at all in a rational society is a different question than the conflicts you are talking about: "no bombs, no drones, no massacres, no torture -- despite cultural differences among nations and individuals". That depends on having a culture of reason and individualism regardless of differences in details between societies and governments. Without that there can be no peace because the statists, collectivists and anarchists of various kinds will not allow it. Being reasonable and peaceful does not restrain those who are not. See Ayn Rand's essay The Roots of War in her book Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

Having a rational culture at all is dependent on a generally understood philosophy of reason properly formulated. Without that people don't know enough to make the proper choices, let alone how to judge individual choices and actions. The Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason and individualism was a strong and necessary start but not enough. See Leonard Peikoff's books The Ominous Parallels and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, i.e., Ayn Rand's philosophy in general. There are many basic philosophical questions that must be formulated and answered. There is much more to it than simply saying don't violate people's rights.

It depends on the culture. A culture and a government that do not respect the rights of individuals within a country will not respect the rights of their neighbors. See Ayn Rand's essay The Roots of War in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

It's not going to happen ever. Not when you have religion involve like we see in the world today. The Supreme Court just created one today with the gay marriage ruling. They're probably activist in this minority group who try to destroy christianity by taking it to the Roman Catholic Church and various other Christian Churches that don't recognize this form of marriage. This is not a rational decision by the SCOTUS.

I am thinking anti-theistic. I am thinking Objectivist - this is the "Gulch" - which is not ok with any religion - whether theist or philosophical in nature. A non-religion (secularism) is not a religion. The idea is not to blindly follow anyone - whether that be a religion based on theistic ideas or a philosophic system that says not to think or accept reality and that anything goes. I think there are some politicians that are very near that - but as soon as they say so - the lemming masses of "believers" on both sides would attack them.
In any case, politicians do resemble the electorate - it is the people who are voting them in. The problem is to teach reality, analytical thinking, etc... This needs to happen in the schools so we have a generation or two of real thinkers/learners vs the results we are currently getting from the Kantian secularists that currently have control over the education system.

"Human nature"? "Unavoidable"? I have to disagree. That belief verges on nihilism, fatalism and determinism.

Rand observed that there is no conflict of interest between rational men. And that man has the power of reason. And, further, that consciousness has volition. Reason and volition are what can overcome "human nature", which is the built-in animal-level (pre-human) system of functioning. That applies to all humans, including those whom we have entrenched as millennia-long enemies. All humans have the same self-interest: to live, survive, prosper. The question becomes: how can we achieve that without mutual destruction; how can we reach that point of interaction where there is no conflict of interest, where thinking can transform or redirect feelings into rational action?

With regards to the Crusades, you didn't do enough homework. The majority of those incursions were to beat back the Islamic invaders before they threatened Europe. It was deemed strategically more sound to hit them in a cultural and military soft spot to force them to focus their efforts there rather than invade Europe. Vienna was one of the main players in rounding up regional support for these efforts because they saw the fleets of invaders waiting to come sack them.

Uh, that's exactly what the liberals want and it's a very bad idea. Where do you think the cult of global warming comes from? The cult of environmentalists? They come from the government's establishment of a single religion - the religion of power. I could say the same about gun control and the welfare state.

What you are talking about is nothing short of tyranny. It's certainly what the leftists want, but its establishment would take away rights - not protect them.

Some here seem to think 'cull' implies force. I think of it as ostracizing or shunning the lazy and other forms of sheep. Let them wallow in their own excrement until they expire or see the light and become parasites no more.

Sounds like you are describing the banking cartel.

Sadly, Puzzlelady, your desire for peaceful resolution of conflict took another blow today in France. When one side holds as a core belief that there can be no peace until they control the entire planet, dealing peacefully with each other (as "traders" to use AR's term) takes a distant back seat. It saddens me greatly, that there are people in the world who voluntarily choose to turn off the "logic circuits" in their brains. When they resort to violence, it angers me as well.

puzzlelady, you have asked the most intriguing
question -- world peace. . my answer is simple.
strength. . the world is peaceful around my house
because we are strong and show it. . we need not
be the world's policePerson if we lead by strength
and tolerance of everyone's uniqueness. . R E S P E C T
for others, with INtolerance for violence. . we should
stop people like Putin and Khameini (Iran) by refusing
to allow them into ANY monetary interactions while
they are acting up. . freeze them out. . grow our
economy with laissez-faire capitalism and use the
resultant strength to influence others against violence
and international encroachment. . IMHO. -- j
.

Conflict between nations could be eliminated by having one nation conquer the rest, but it wouldn't be an improvement.

We need to return to the era when individuals were better armed than the government. That's the only way anyone will ever escape tyranny. (And today that means moving outside any of the areas the big nations own or are fighting for, at least until we're big enough to defy them.)

Conflict among individuals is human nature and unavoidable. And no society bigger than a small tribe (say, 150 people) can expect to do without an active police force for any length of time.

We can't because we're human. Adam and Eve couldn't get it right...I have no reason to believe that the rest of us ever could.

Even if there were only 2 people left on Earth, one of them would, eventually, assume the role of the superior. Oh, sure, we would make a valiant attempt at maintaining "equality", but human nature would take over, in time. When desperate enough, your mind will tend to convince you that any action is justified.

You hit on the answer in your headline...one individual at a time. You can not resolve pagan cultural conflicts, idiot-non-logical conflicts nor mystical conflicts with broad sweeping diplomacy!

Peaceful conflict resolution rests on a philosophical basis of respecting human rights. Ayn Rand was right in so many ways. Human beings today are so far from a group that actually decides what to do based on thinking rather than "feeling" that peaceful conflict resolution is a far out dream. I would be lucky to peacefully live in close proximity to neighbors at this point !! Forget about nations cooperating peacefully.

Not exactly alone as I too have allies in my personal Gulch, altho likely not enough to make much difference in this insane world.
So how do thee dub thyself?

We can't. That is, not in the case of regimes which
have no respect for individual rights,and attack us,
or attack our important allies, such as Great Brit-
ain or Israel. We just have to be prepared to de-
feat them in war.--Now, in the case of not being at war with such a nation (as yet), perhaps we
could propagandize Objectivism, in the form of
letter bombs dropped there, written in their own
language. But don't expect any quick success.

I used to raised chickens a as a youth!
It is a good skill to bring to the Gulch.

Yep, I agree - "exhibit the ability and the will to make initiation too expensive". It's too bad we don't have that will anymore. As we are currently operating (too many people and definitely the government) we are practically inviting trouble (like from ISIS and such) because they are not afraid of the cost of initiation on their part - partly because they are not afraid to kill themselves and largely because they know we'll give them little "cost" I for initiating - if any.
I believe Ayn Rand was is favor of the government having a strong military for this exact purpose - to deter initiation from outside sources, but internally for minimal Federal Government - other than to enforce and uphold our rational natural rights.

Not too strong - I took you literally - cull is just a nicer way to say kill. I farm. If I say I need to cull a chicken, its not just kicking it out of the chicken house ;)