Living alone on an island, everyone is first a hunter-gatherer who takes whatever is there, but over time realizes he can improve on his llife through his own work.
It when groups gather together that the hunter-gatherer instincts bloom into taking whatever is there that others might create also. Collectivism is born. The problem comes in when the resources are depleted and no one is producing (venezuela and soon the USA)

But, it takes real thinking for everyone to realize that if everyone produces and trades that everyone can be better off. Hence Objectivism. For some reason, this is hard for the people in a society to agree on. Maybe it a basic part of human "instinct" that higher thinking can overcome.

I think that I work less than the bums asking for money on the street. I certainly have less stress and live better than they do. I dont have to stand out in the cold or heat and depend on others to feel guilty over my "plight". Its easier in fact to get things from others when you actually have something to offer them that they need for their lives- other than some fleeting relief from self-imposed guilt.

So, I say acceptance of objectivist principles makes for an easier life. Certainly easier than accepting socialist principles as in Venezuela.

Thx. I have been wondering for a long time WHY collectivism is so powerful a force in the world, when in reality it just doesnt work at all, no matter how many times its tried. They ignore Venezuela and its total failure, when there IS Atlas Shrugged actually happening in our time.

I no longer think that the liberals passively think the stuff is always there. There is the evil part of it which they cannot hide. They WANT to take from me and others who produce. Look at the hatred of the "rich"- "they have stuff that I want and if they dont give it to me, I will take it"

I would suggest the liberals DO think, at least at the level of an animal. But their thinking is in terms of getting the goodies that are there already. Look at the complexity of their confiscatory laws and their propaganda arguments. But they are acting like animals without the ability to look at what happens if all the animals act the same way. The beauty of objectivism is that it is proposing a way that will allow all humans to act individually in their own self interest, but with the result that all are better off - as opposed to collectivism where everyone takes and no one makes until there is no more to take.

Alone on a desert island, I am an objectivist I would say. Reality is all there is. I act in my own self interest. There are certain things I can just take for my own survival, but I can improve my lot by growing things, making a hut, etc.

But when there are more than one person on that island, the beauty and simplicity of objectivism comes into play. If we all agree to the principles inherent in it, we can each peacefully pursue our own self interest and ALL improve our lot in life.

I think we are both agreeing on the same thing, but its a matter of distilling down the words into the simplest form.

the vast majority of individuals are taught by govt schools that teach everyone how essential govt is. Many that I talk to cannot conceive of life without govt taking care of them...no matter how poor that care is...and they are taught from day 1 how evil capitalism is...then there is religion...

I don't think they want to force others to make the stuff that can be taken. I think they just assume that it is there and is always going to be there in some "cargo cult" view of the world.

I simply cannot convince my liberal friends that the purpose of employing people is so that the employees produce something that can be sold at a profit. They do not acknowledge the connection between work and production and the need for the production to generate the compensation for the employee. In their mind, employment benefits are entirely disconnected from productivity.

the greater majority of people living in the usa have no interest in being independent so they will never understand objectivism; period! I have spoken to a number of people who have read Alas and they never did get the point and have not applied any of the philosophy to their lives because they just do not understand.

I have a 600 acre alfalfa field across the road from me. This time of year, they run a couple hundred steers on it to munch on the cut. Cows are a good example of collective "thinking." They respond to their immediate need and follow the path of the least resistance generally by "following" each other. They don't (can't) think of consequences, outcomes, processes, the rationale of their choices and, thus all suffer the same fate: hamburger. As AR made clear, it is the individual that creates a future different than the one assumed by a collective, mob, herd --because the individuals within the collective don't/won't think.

I must say that I have never read a clearer explanation of the difference between objectivism and collectivism - very well done! I am astounded at its simplicity and accuracy!

It depends on how you score the positive and negative aspects of living by a particular philosophy. The concept of being truly self sufficient, not having to depend on anyone else is a positive aspect of Objectivism. The reality of having to fend for yourself, without aid from the nanny state or charities can be terrifying, and is very much a negative aspect of Objectivism. Those who sincerely believe in Objectivism have faith that the positive aspects of living by its principles will result in a secure, affluent society. The hard work aspect of Objectivism is as uncomfortable to many as the hard work aspect of Calvinism was to early New England colonists. In some respects, Objectivism is a more enlightened form of Clavinism, without the demand for altruism and self abuse for sin.

An objectivist wouldn't be a politician.

I would suggest that a collectivist DOES think individually- in terms of what brings the most goodies.

Each liberal is correct that he or she can get the most goodies for the least effort by taking them from others. They HAVE INDEED THOUGHT ABOUT IT and determined this to be true.

What they didnt think about is the other people who adopt the same methods. Pretty soon there are no more producers and that means less goodies available to take.

In the meantime, they have also thought about Hillary's slogan- STRONGER TOGETHER- and determined that she was right in that the bigger gang gets more goodies.

It IS a war out there, and we need to take sides, as Francisco said in AS. The liberals ARE thinking how they can get stuff from the producers.

"Why hasn't everyone adapted"

Because man is volitional.

Thinking is an individual process. That is one reason it is hard. Forfeiting my thinking to a consensus (a collective) relieves me of the burden, subsumes my responsibility to think to the collective, thus relieving me of what is hard: thinking.

But thinking isnt harder than digging ditches or standing on the corner in the cold (or heat) begging for money.

I think its even more basic. Animals are hunter-gatherers- they live by taking whats there for the taking. They dont produce, at least most of them dont go farther than making nests out of what they find lying around.
When we come into the world, we are the same. We take from mommy and daddy. But we dont produce anything.

Humans have the ability to grow past that and actually produce what they need, as we have slowly done over the ages. Capitalism makes best use of this ability.

But I think that the appeal of collectivism is that it allows people to never get past the "taking whats there" stage. In this society, this has been expanded to taking not only whats lying around, but forcing others to make the stuff that can be taken.

I think its the animal instincts in humans that forms the basis of the seemingly incessant movement towards collectivism. Producing involves more risk than simply taking whats there. Your crop might fail. The food thats already there for the taking is a sure thing.

Maybe a bit of game theory will help explain. Everyone would be better off by producing, but an individual person is better off by taking whats already there (whether its part of the earth or made by other people). Objectivism teaches the former; collectivism teaches the latter.

Because thinking is hard.

Because simply put, liberalism (progressivism) is a mental disorder. Asking those with mental disorders to acknowledge reality isn't going to happen.

"The "Me" generation in the United States is a term referring to the baby boomers generation and the self-involved qualities that some people associate with it.[1] The 1970s were dubbed the "Me" decade by writer Tom Wolfe;[2] Christopher Lasch was another writer who commented on the rise of a culture of narcissism among the younger generation of that era.[3] The phrase caught on with the general public, at a time when "self-realization" and "self-fulfillment" were becoming cultural aspirations to which young people supposedly ascribed higher importance than social responsibility. It is distinct from "Generation Me", which has been used to refer to the Millennial Generation." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_gene...

"Every Every Every Generation Has Been the Me Me Me Generation (Atlantic, May 9, 2013)
Millennials are the "ME ME ME GENERATION," writes Joel Stein for Time magazine's new cover story out today — which makes him only the latest culture writer in the last century or so to declare the youth self-obsessed little monsters." --
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...

Plato complained about the youth of his day. In the comedy The Clouds the hapless father has been run into debt because his son gambles on horse races. And Plato had the cure for that: barracks communism like Sparta, but ruled by a "philosopher king." (See my comments here: it was in communist Russia that everyone was legally required to work.) Aristoitle was not an individualist, either.

We are qualitatively different from previous generations. Identifying the pursuit of happiness as a natural right is what made capitalism possible. Read Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard" would have been anathema to the Calvinists of the 1600s. The Calvinists of th 1600s got rich. But they were still mandated to do social good for the glory of God. Franklin expressed a totally different Protestant Ethic in his essay The Way to Wealth.

The writer for The Atlantic might have intended hyperbole when she wrote "in the last century or so" but the idea of Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard" informed the youth of a capitalist America which easily can be said to have blossomed 100 years ago (about 100 years after Franklin). It takes time for ideas to spread, to take seed... Read a boy's story from 100 years ago. We all know Tom Sawyer, but that was tame. Read a Horatio Alger story. Do you know the Disney movie "Toby Tyler"? "Toby Tyler is a film produced by Walt Disney Productions and distributed by Buena Vista Distribution Company on January 21, 1960. It is based on the 1880 children's book Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus by James Otis Kaler." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Ty....

Realize that in a previous era the runaway boy Tyl Eulenspiegel is at the end of a hope, hanged for his merry pranks. He is not productive and he comes to a bad end. There are many such folk tales about the stupid apprentice who leaves his master and comes to grief. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is just a comic form of that. In a boy's book from 1910, the runaway Dan Dashaway, learns to fly an airplane. It is shift in cutlure.

Ayn Rand continued that, ampllfying it with a foundation in philosophy that empowered self interest.

To take the last point first, I am not sure what an Objectivist politician would look like. It is possible and been done often to get elected on a promise to roll back regulations, ease taxes, and keep the government out of our homes and businesses. Conservatives like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are the exemplars. We still have anti-liberty conservatives like Texas Sen. John Cornyn, an old Nixon-era "law and order" conservative who never met a law he didn't like. But they are the minority now.

Even Elizabeth Warren said that she wants an America in which you can make "great piles of money" (I think that's a quote) -- though of course, the next clause was that you have to pay your fair share of taxes. But just admitting the first part was a change from 50 years ago.

Even religion in America has it Joel Osteen who unlike previous generations of rich pastors not only does not apologize for his wealth, but he wants to receive God's abundance also.

We have a long way to go. We still have churches. But, really, we have come a long way in 50 years.

The reason that the average poor person in America lives better than a medieval king is because of capitalism. And, there is no shame in not working. It was in communist Russia that everyone was legally required to have a job: he who does not work shall not eat. Capitalism allowed leisure not known in feudal times or to agrarian societies. Hunter-gatherers do have our kind of leisure, about one-third of the day, about half of your waking life. But they never get beyond that because they are only hunting and gathering static resources they have no control over.

Capitalism allows us to have huge blocks of leisure in our days and in our lives.

Taking in $30,000 year by asking strangers for spare change is not psychologically efficacious. But the personal immorality of sloth carries no mandate that other people must punish you for it. If you do not want to give money to a beggar, that is your choice. Other people make other choices. I grant that it is because of the philosophy of altruism, really because of religion, that people split their cloaks for beggars. But it doesn't take anything away from me.

And I give money to beggars myself. I begin with the assumption that everyone who wants to work can. But there's lots of exceptions: criminal record and failed drug test are just two. I see people who claim to be disabled. I figure they can go to a welfare agency. They don't need to beg. Then, I think about going to a welfare agency and begging seems like the honorable alternative. At least the people who give you money voluntarily don't treat you like dirt for interrupting their coffee breaks.

The US Constitution gave the federal government power to legislate bankruptcy. Many of the Founders were merchants. In the Middle Ages, bankruptcy could be punished by death. That was one of many reasons that they remained poor: they did not understand risk. You seemed to touch on that at first but did not follow through on the premise.

Bottom line: it is better for you to be productive. But that is fundamentally a psychological choice to live as Rand termed it "man qua man." That is a selfish choice for you to make.

While it is easy to agree with the agreement, I point out that historically every society has been - and today largely are - "dedicated to raising looters and leeches." Altruism is the natural state. It was America that recognized the pursuit of happiness as a natural right.

The urban advocate Jane Jacobs pointed out that poverty needs no explanation. Poverty is the natural state. It is abundance that needs explanation. So, too, here, I said above that altruism is the natural state. It is not just "our society" that has some special flaw.

And what do you mean by "our"? Talk to the parents here. We raised our children to be self-centered and productive. At least, I did. And that goes back several generations. The Fountainhead came out in 1943 and was made into a movie in 1947. Five years later, Fortune magazine was clamoring for another Ayn Rand novel -- and rumors were already out that it was going to be "about business."

I work at a federal agency -- in a proper role of government. Today's Federal Times online newspaper included an article about stupid regulations that need to go. You would not have gotten that in 1957.

Agree with all of the comments make so far. But to sum up and state simply
Objectivism is a hard way of life. You are dependent upon yourself to survive. No handouts not special favors no "Looting".
Todays society id dedicated to raising Looters and leaches not full blown objectivists.

I have heard it said that the typical poor American has a far better life than a king in the Middle Ages. Biologically, a cheating the system person on "disability" has a sufficient life doing nothing.

Failure has been turned from a motivation-enhancing moment to a catastrophic end-all point, so why would anyone try to risk anything?

With just these two things you can capture a vast amount of people who will then decide that trying, working and struggling are too dangerous for them or just have no benefit. So they desire legislation that "protects" them.
Their motivations are changed and they will no longer want to be objective about them.

Everything we do is directed by what motivates us, and none of us is constantly directed by just one motivating force.

Admission to selfishness is not acceptable in our culture no matter how natural and logical it is for everyone to have their own survival and welfare as their first concern. Those that want to have power over others are very sly in convincing us to accept demands made on the strong by the weak. The state or the church that can coerce producers to bind themselves to slavery through altruism can then take credit for the bounty provided to the masses and justify their claim to the right to wield that power. If the state/religion controls education and the media the majority will follow and those that see the fallacy have to reach their conclusion mostly on their own and one at a time.

Ayn Rand left an antidote to the poison and no matter how vehemently she and her ideas are attacked, her logic and natural truth overcomes the reluctance of those that understand her philosophy to defy socially correct norms that we enslave ourselves with. It takes courage to espouse ideas that brand you as an atheist, selfish, uncaring, greedy capitalist and so far it is impossible to get elected on those grounds.