Exactly khalling; less chance of a lot of -ocracies.

You are reading too much into what I wrote.
She said a long study period is necessary to properly grasp all the details so that you have a proper internalized thought process about Objectivism in order to make the proper stand for reality and reason.
I've read her writings extensively over the last 20+ years and it took perhaps 5 years before I could watch a news story on TV and pick it apart philosophically.
If you are fortunate enough to have been introduced to her thoughts early in life, you probably are ahead of the game. Good for you!

We agree on this completely, Zenphamy.

Certainly I have a problem with accomodation on occasion, and I do consider it a weakness. It is not enough to get me to vote for people that I don't want to win. However, there are quite a few people in this forum who tell us to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is a prime example of the accomodation that I was referring to. +1 for Robbie. AR considered accomodation a problem as well, as exemplified by Rearden.

Thanks, Zenphamy.

This why Atlas Shrugged is worthy of deeper analysis. Above all, is the moral justification for capitalism. Without property rights capitalism can 't work. If capitalism were allowed to thrive the govt would be necessarily smaller and the politician (law maker) not that important in the mind of the people. Those who were super creators, inventors would be the ones with th the most wealth. Even the banksters would not be in the position they currently enjoy today. The power would be about creating along all levels of society. There would still be power structures in private groups, organized religion but how those groups function would still be voluntary and take a back seat to capitalism. I mean in influencing policy -less chance of a theocracy.

Oh, sorry, I misread your comment. Very interesting!

jbrenner; Well said +1

jbrenner; You're quite right that living Objectivism is hard in our current society and that in any society there will be those that wish to loot and mooch, but that doesn't negate the soundness or correctness of the philosophy in any manner, nor does it prove the benefits of any other that I'm aware of.

As to the options available to Objectivist you list, I would argue that there are other options. One is simply self defense in a manner that wouldn't meet your idea of non-aggression. AR did not advocate non-aggression -- she advocated non-initiation of force except in the case of self defense and that utilizing force in any case was counter productive to a free market necessary for the well being of all.

Ahh now, that wasn't nice to say or even imply. You've hurt me deeply, wah-wah-wah. In return, I find you to be a sophist as Aristotle described, without any foundational or reasoned philosophy of your own.

And with the rest of your statement, why on earth would you spend time on this site. Just to argue and cause controversy?

Yes, if it's proven to be evil and antagonistic to human life, why would I not reject such a view out of hand? I can see reasons to attempt to understand it or at least what drives it. But I'm not sure that it's worth anyone's effort or time to try to understand insanity.

It was not from a parable that was against private property ownership, but for it,
"...The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not OWN the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep..."

One thing that distinguishes Objectivists from non-Objectivists is what Freud called accomodation. Objectivists have a very low tolerance for oppression and refuse to oppress others. Non-objectivists accomodate to a suprisingly high level. Moreover, tyrants realize this and take advantage of it.

I am not arguing that Objectivism is not a better way. What I am saying is that non-Objectivists have a different set of premises. In particular, they don't accept the non-aggression principle. Objectivism can be effective in a society that honors the non-aggression principle as America did until about 1900. Since then, many in America have not followed the non-aggression principle, and America has suffered accordingly.

You do quite well in your arguments, Zenphamy. I am not saying that I think that the aggressive use of force is appropriate. It is not. What I tried to do was re-state Robbie's argument into simpler terms. What Robbie is saying is that Objectivist societies are inherently unstable because some of those who are not Objectivists will try to fill a power vacuum and set themselves up as lords over the Objectivists. They think that it is perfectly reasonable to impose on you. In that scenario, Objectivists have the options to leave, to compromise their values, to succumb, or to be vanquished by those who would oppress. Out of these options, the best option is to leave. Objectivist philosophy is a wonderful ideal. What is hard is living Objectivism in a world full of non-Objectivists.

Bullying in Robbie's example is one of the things that holds most countries back from achieving success. The lack of the use of force to convert citizens into subjects by America's early presidents was why America was successful for as long as it was.

That's a specious question -- look around this site and you will find many. This is a site generally attracting Objectivist.

I strongly disagree, jbrenner. His argument is easy to refute for an Objectivist, though I may not exemplify the best of those. His argument certainly does not explain why America is or was considered exceptional, only what has damaged that status.