It may be numbers of people like ways to know things, among which, reasons Objectivism is the highest philosophy. A number of people may not care, if caring about philosophy, Objectivism is the highest and greatest philosophy. Nor of it greater than the greatest religion to the highest number of people.No religion is not there nor the theme in one of the highest selling science fiction books series no less than 15 thousand years in a supposing future.

animals produce what? They use whats there except for making nests

People not believing the writer is a philosopher is not causing the writer not to be philosopher.

What's the way to know Objectivism is the highest philosophy when there are people with more money and are richer than Objectivists?

It may be separate various books numbers of Objectivists encourage reading and rate high are not Objectivists.

There are people richer and with more money than Objectivists.

Maybe Donald Trump is the closest to an Objectivist with the highest office.

There are people believing their lives greater than Objectivists.

Not each.

Words of Doctor Michael Savage.

Are each person proclaiming Objectivism independent?

Animals produce.

People don't like the objective answers. They want to go with what makes them feel good. I don't always like the answers that objectivism yields, but they are normally the right ones.

It was America that recognized the pursuit of happiness as an individual right as opposed to a right conferred upon a group and that it was natural in that one has it because one is human.

Recall in Atlas Shrugged those people who think that a factory is a "national resource?" That is the mindset that you are describing.

If Objectivism were the ONLY philosophy...it would be a pretty dull world. We have to have some variety to keep us sane...but I'll chose the Objectivist's camp.

Then we are doomed. I believe that if we start in the schools teaching children HOW not WHAT to think, we will have a large group of adults that will be open to ideas based on facts and logic. With a significant number of voters in that category, an Objectivist could find it rewarding and be willing to be elected to a term of government service. I think only professional politicians are abhorrent and corrupt but competent citizens that, in order to maintain an orderly society, participate in the governing process, are to be admired and their desire to do so would be entirely in their own best interest.

Right, thieves looking for cover in the herd..........

Maybe they are lazy too and just want freebie stuff like my cat and dogs do. At least they are smarter than liberals and have learned what their providers want- like loyalty and attending to our needs.
The collectivist humans dont give anything back at all. They are just thieves.

Because the current trend in philosophy doesn't take into account freedom as the key component of a modern philosophy. Also Rand is regarded by most as an author rather than a philosopher. They read only her books (if that) and stop when contemplating her polemics.They look at her as an anomoly.

You got it: "stronger together" is a way of justifying what they know is wrong" So is "social justice," "equality for all," "environmentalist," ALL are covers for theft, all are justified by "the collective says it's alright so it must be okay for me to participate and get away with stealing someone else's choices, goodies, freedoms --- and I can hide deep within the collective and never be held accountable."

Collectivists are cowards because they are fearful of being individuals and have it pointed out that they failed (or succeeded) on their own.

I am having trouble with that view. It seems to me that the hillary supporters with their "stronger together" mantra arent trying to get rid of the "unwanted self", but are stuck in the hunter-gatherer phase of life and actively seek to get more than that is available without taking things from other people. "stronger together" is a way of justifying what they know is wrong. Taking from others is wrong, but taking from others when you are entitled to it anyway isnt wrong.

Term2, I, too, believe we are saying the same thing and the issue of distilling the concepts into the simplest form is a forever process. Which is one of the fun things about being a thinking human. But some don't enjoy that process and, to hide from that responsibility, hide within a collective.

My main point, made by Eric Hoffer:
".......on the other hand, a mass movement (collective) particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

Man has free will. Just because something is good does not guarantee that it will be promptly accepted, or at all.
Why did the Western world stagnate through about 10 centuries of misery under tyranny, superstition, a mainly-monopoly Church, and diseases? Because it takes a long time for rational ideas to gain acceptance.

Why do collectivists work so hard writing closely argued books, albeit with some faulty premises in their logic due to an adversity to the nature of reality? An example: I had a professor of mathematics at U. of Wisconsin who was a collectivist to the extent that an individual may produce results but that they are nothing due to all the previous mathematicians and that one has to pay back to society for that in reparation to society. I get pleasure from what others have produced, but do not owe them anything other than recognition and any monetary purchase of their work with due respect for copyrights if material is useful in a proof. I would guess that most mathematicians who publish want their work extended by others. Is that collectivism or just a division of labor?