My concern is what a total collapse would lead to. I don't see a John Galt figure waiting in the wings prepared to build a country based on freedom and liberty. My feeling is we would go totally Socialist at that point.

Hi OA. I realize it is an uphill struggle but I am willing to press on. Hope all is well with you.

" Is it okay to accept some progress over none at all?"
My admittedly snide answer is it depends on what your goal is. If we like things going to the devil, being sanctimonious, and having a flood-myth hope that the problems will lead to catastrophe that wipes out the decadent, then we should make no compromises. If we actually want people's rights respected, incremental progress is the only way.

"I worry that people will compare Trump with Rand (error) and then say-see?"
Unfortunately that has already happened. Ayn Rand is shorthand among people who have not read any of her books for a set of ideas that's mostly opposite of what's actually in the books. It's like that Dirty Dancing reference from the other thread: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Hello richrobinson,
Every Objectivist to date has lived in the world as it was. Some have tried to improve it and spread the word. Some have just lived as best they can. I prefer to live in a time when the flame still has a chance to burn... and perhaps even brighter.

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it's yours.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Regards,
O.A.

I expect the ultimate goal to be an absolute. I expect it to represent the truth and that everyone should strive to attain it. It is important that this kind of goal never moves or needs to. Those supporting this goal should never waiver or have to. Objectivism, based on reality and reason is the only philosophy that can stand the test of reason therefore it is ultimately all or nothing. All progress along the way is a significant achievement and should be enjoyed to the fullest.

my dear friend. crack the spines of her non-fiction. the answers to your concerns are there :)

You mean like starznbarz's new post on whether Rand would approve of Trump?

Objectivism is a very different philosophy than many others. There is no "one size fits all" with Objectivism, since it deals with an individual's pursuit of rational self interest. Everyone has different self interests, so if an individual's goal is to obtain the most freedom or wealth or whatever, then having excitement over a baby step to achieving that goal can be celebrated within the Objectivists thoughts. Since a rational mind can conclude that a 100% Objectivist society is impossible to achieve within one's lifetime, then not celebrating the small victories would be irrational.

Additionally, a rational person's perception of what a candidate may or may not do to help/hurt their own self interest can vary from Objectivist to Objectivist. For instance, if my primary goal is to make more money, then Trump might seem like the best available candidate. If my primary goal is to have freedom to do as I please then perhaps Johnson might have been a better choice. It is all perception.

No. I haven't read it yet. Trump is definitely not an Objevctivist. My concern is if we go all or nothing in politics it will always be nothing.

I worry that people will compare Trump with Rand (error) and then say-see? this is what you get with the thinking of Objectivists. Politics is part of philosophy, but there can be no compromises in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics. Politics comes after all of that. You need to read more of her non-fiction work. Have You read Philosophy Who Needs It? yet?

Ditto.

Thanks JB. Rand was clearly "all" but I do feel closer to the thinking of Dagny and Hank. I want to fight to the bitter end.

Yes...I think both you and Rich really speak the truth here. The "right" that we have really isn't right anymore (pun intended). I gripe that they're statists, for example. The true right, anymore, just exists in online forums like this - based on my observations. But, look at history. Isn't this a scenario that repeats itself over and over? - this gradual slither toward the left toward eventual ruin?

I find the "left" and "right" categories to be increasingly less useful. The "left" includes collectivists in economic policy, and both individualists and "pc police" when it comes to social policy. The "right" includes economic free-marketers and both social individualists and social collectivists. Both groups include militarists and non-interventionists. I generally disregard "left" and "right" labels and focus on the degree to which a candidate or policy supports individual liberty.

Exactly!

A great topic choice, Rich.

Rand viewed Objectivism as all or nothing. She clearly rejected libertarianism, and often was in significant disagreement with those who considered themselves among her closest adherents.

As for accepting small victories, does this make you a Dagny? I am quite willing to be called a Dagny.

Hi Abaco. I think we have strayed so far left as a nation that it will take a Herculean effort to change direction.. It seemed that each time the pendulum swung right it was less and less and each leftward shift was greater and greater.

Unfortunately, unless we get a substantial reduction in government we will not see the improvement necessary for people to notice the change. It will be more of the last 20 years and in 4-8 years people will be looking for change again. A little is not enough. Hope I am wrong and you are right. We will see.

I am tending to adhere to the theory that our system, politically, is like a pendulum. It goes left and right and many recently noticed that it was going too far left...therefore, President Trump. However, I believe that what we are seeing is not an impending, sudden, collapse. What we'll experience is a gradual, subtle reduction in our quality of life, accompanied with a parallel reduction in our personal freedoms. The pendulum in the grandfather clock goes back and forth while the clock slowly rolls down a shallow slope. In 60 years it's possible that America will be more like Argentina with a very powerful domestic security element, for an example.

I think almost any philosophy is "all or nothing". You either are in, out, or have a new philosophy. But, I'm no expert on that.

Hi Ed. I am hoping that if we make some progress we can change peoples thinking and we can keep it going. May be wishful thinking but I have to have hope.

Okay to accept some progress, of course. But some progress will not solve the problem and the result will be going in the opposite direction again in 4-8 more years. Sooner or later the final result will be the total collapse whether we want it or not.