Regarding the cats and dogs -- at least these animals hold no belief that their meowing or barking holds any level of import in terms of being an argument. The liberal actually believes that their less-than-bromide pronouncements hold some moral value. And as you say, our pets do offer something in return for their domesticated care. The liberal holds no such belief and will remind you that they are entitled to any instantiation of The Freedom from Want (an old FDR-ism).

There are a lot of good explanations here. But they all leave us with a very small group of objectivists.

Everyone has not adopted Objectivism because the first rule of Objectivism is that one cannot initiate force against another.

An Objectivist politician?!--I don't know if we even
should have one, or want to have one, at this point. An Objectivist in that position could easily
become tainted. Certainly a President would have to promise to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.--Including
the 16th Amendment?!--But how could he?
Of course, a Congressman would not have perhaps the same obligations of a President. And one could argue that one could best preserve the Constitution by excising (repealing)
such a malignant growth as the Income Tax A-
mendment. But the President cannot introduce
bills; he is not supposed to make the law, but carry it out.
But a Congressman?--I don't know how much good he could do before getting involved in too much of that logrolling,etc.
I think we need to change the political climate and ideas of the society first.

No. But Aristotle had existed. And learned people
had turned from him, and, apparently his philosophy was forgotten for a while. Why did that happen? Because man has free will. (I am not maintaining that Aristotle was perfect, or that his politics was necessarily right, but the idea that individual, perceptible things are what exist
can eventually lead to individualism, vs. the Platonic, otherworldly "oneness").
Man has free will. And the right ideas are not guaranteed to be accepted.
--Still, the right ideas, when accepted, are the ones that promote human survival. Look at America's historical record, with its industry, prosperity, etc.

At one place a staff places a paper about if one wants, one can buy a present no more than $15 and be at the place at a certain time and date and exchange it to get what a separate person buys.Later at an office the staff talks of putting it in the room and starts talking it's a requirement to buy a present to exchange.It's in a room where one pays rent. Also the place is where people chore without pay or an additional person knowing a person gets money. A person may activate a profession without getting pay.A separate person talks it's a place where a staff gets drugs.Also various staff check rooms if one places one's meds in a certain location.Then the staff indicates walk with the staff outside the office before more in it. Then asks if one is at the place coincidental with the date. No precedes the staff not asking more. Then the staff dispenses with certain things one is not getting at a meeting one is not attending because one is away because of what reason.People there get things people are not getting at the meeting because of not attending because most likely not there.Writing one thing, like freedom to get to exchange is separate from requirement orally not by writing toward it.

Productivity is more thana psychologicla choice. The US Constitution is of more than power.

Superiority may not be the reason toward adoption. One may agree it may not be with philosophy. A number may adopt the philosophy of various animals to be a way above various people. The animals have theirs before people. More people adopt electricity to get light, but too much of a number may not appreciate it enough.Jack London kn ows it with the various friends..Also it's in no fewer than two places in California. Also away.

Ayn Rand has had an enormous influence, but not many understand her explicit philosophy, let alone are "coming around to it".

But your question was, "If Objectivism is the superior philosophy? Then why hasn't everyone adopted?" There is a false assumption in that that superiority by itself is enough. It does not follow from the fact that an idea or a system of ideas is superior that people will necessarily embrace it. Each individual must choose to focus on it and decide whether or not he thinks it is superior, and then decide whether or not to put it in practice with integrity.

All that requires understanding what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. Most don't understand what it is at all, in part because it is so radically different than prevailing ideas passed down for centuries. Without that understanding they cannot be expected to recognize that it is superior or why, and are still subject -- both emotionally and intellectually -- to influences in other directions even if they are attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas and sense of life.

If you want to understand why and how it so radically different you should dig into Ayn Rand's nonfiction, and in particular go through Leonard Peikoff's lecture course on the History of Philosophy to see the intellectual context and how it evolved. Reading the novels isn't enough. The philosophy is implicit in the novels, especially Atlas Shrugged, and was required before she could write them, and there are many elements of the philosophy stated explicitly. But if you don't understand the philosophic context and contrasts you will not be able to appreciate how much is in the novels and its significance.

Yes, I would note that Objectivism being hard to master as being a theme among your comment as well as others. Yet, Objectivism isn't the only philosophy that is hard. Also, there are deep thinkers in other philosophies. Kant was a deep thinker. Thomas Aquinas was deep thinker as well.

It is radical, opposes the values of most because most do not apply reason et al. It is telling that - supported by a good study - reason is suppressed with a theist when presented with an religious message or a healer, but not with an atheist. One has to truly want to change his core beliefs. And irrational beliefs result from poor education.

Ayn Ran influence is significant and there is no doubt about. People have adopt some of her ideas, but not all of her ideas. You bring up a lot of interest points, but I guess I am struggling to find the main point. Is that people are coming around to Objectivism?

I have read all the comments below. Thank you everyone for your thoughts.

it is an uphill...one worth fighting...

The US Constitution, the one of the greatest country, may point and indicate ways to get rich and happy.It includes normalcy.

A number of them may not know.Mybe numbers of less than rich people may believe medieval kings are happier than they. A number of them may wish they are kings, including medieval ones.Maybe sounding and appearing less normal, but possible to believe the talkers are there, more than one less than rich person believes he or she are kings and queens.One may agree it more likely among the rich, by what requirement it is to be rich,rich at present may be richer and greater "off" than a king and queen then.

I believe it was Henry Ford who said: "Thinking is hard work, which is perhaps why so few engage in it." I may not have the exact words, but that is the idea.

What's the way to know less than rich people dwell greater than kings, including medieval ones?

No it's not. A part of its superiority is it's easy. Self sufficiency is easier and more normal than wanting things from separate people.Looters and leachers are too much of a number pretending they are Objecitivists, too much of a number pretending with libertarianism.

The triple "ME" may cause beliefs they are babies.Also not knowing "ME", me, and who and what "ME' and me is and area.Lots of animals with thir languages and ways may have ways with the proclamation indicating superiority and more normalcy. It may be an insult to animals to liken Y-generationers and milleniums with the triple "ME" program to animals and describe they with the two-letter pronoun animalistic.

Which man?

Because a number of catholics admit Galileo write is the religion 100% endorsing and through with censoring and chastising new, novel, and sane notions,beliefs,disocveries, and inventions?

What's the current trend? What makes It? Is it?To what people? Where?

One may believe Objectivism is not dull with its varieties of what there are to comprehend.There may be various close and tantalizing additional philosophies.What causes dull? What causes not dull? May be individual.May be the rendering,too. Who talks it indicates fascination and love, or clamors.

A number of people are in a good state when the answer is Objectivistic. An Objectivist may or may not care of a people only in a good state if hearing what resembles an answer which is not Objectivistic.There are dependencies with it, too. It may depend upon who is the Objectivist and what are the words. It may depend on the way of the words, the sound, and more.