I agree that experiencing a crash does not impart the knowledge about what would work better. Especially true if you never thought about the philosophy in place that resulted in the crash

I think most people today just bumble along in some emotional fog . When there is nothing to eat, they know something is wrong, but don’t know what or why. If they had thought about things in the first place they would never have let things get that bad.
I remember an interview with AR in which she hoped AS would get people thinking enough to stop the spread of collectivism

What is obvious is what a monumental task that is and how little impact writing a few books has.-Not zero impact, but a small impact on a country overall.

The beginnings of the USA was influenced far more by the very negative experience of being subjected to the collectivist English both in England and in the harsh new land. I think it did spark some intellectuals like Jefferson and the other founding fathers to produce our constitution as an alternative to the hated British rule. I wasn’t around then , but I suspect the average colonist st the time in 1776 just went along with the alternative to British rule because they hated British rule so much not because they were convinced objectivist principles were correct intellectually

Maybe what’s required today is emotional upset with the practicalities of the way the country is going, mixed with a leader or leaders who offer an alternative, just like happened in 1776.

I agree with you about it taking a long time for that emotional upset to get to the breaking point. I see the election of trump as an indication that upset is growing among the 5o% who were labeled deplorable. They don’t automatically have an intellectual basis , but I don’t think the settlers in 1776 did either

We are seeing the beginnings of the American revolution V2.0. The other 50% see the danger to their corrupt system and are fighting i to preserve it as the English did.

Venezuela isn't the only example. It didn't work in the Dark Ages either. Or, in more modern times, in the Soviet Union, and countless other examples. Knowing you don't like something doesn't tell you how to get out of it or what is right. And finding out what is right takes an enormous amount of thought and time-consuming understanding, which delay can be lessened by eventually learning and understanding better ideas spread by others who do know more.

Ayn Rand has had an impact on the culture, but it is only the beginning and not yet in the establishment intellectuals. Positive change is possible, but a full flowering of reason and individualism is likely a long way off.

Meanwhile, if you fear an irrational mob that you can't reason with, then deliberately provoking it by hitting them over the head with a deliberate crash to "get their attention" is probably not a good idea.

You do have some good arguments which are borne out so far in Venezuela. The collapse there hasn’t sparked much positive philosophical change either there or here for that matter.

The prevalent philosophy in the USA is very irrational and getting worse. AS. Didn’t do very much at all to affect the dominant cultural philosophy so far

I suspect that real change will take generations far beyond the lifetimes of people alive today.

You have no idea what I do. It doesn't include soapboxes.

If you can't rationally communicate your ideas to people, one mind at a time, you will not succeed by trying to force them with a nihilistic "collapse" making a mess with a global food-fight to "get their attention". Collapse and death are not an argument for correct ideas.

Those who take your freedom are motivated by what you call
"idiotic philosophies" that you don't want to care about. Ignoring that is thoroughly anti-intellectual; it will not change the ideas people base their decisions on.

There are no shortcuts to changing prevailing ideas across a culture, including global food fights deliberately causing destruction that would most likely destroy you -- especially if the people you hurt find out you urged and caused it to "get their attention", in which case they would most likely cannibalize you on the spot rather than suddenly decide to read "Galt's speech", let alone instantly absorb it and understand it in the middle of a panic in a crisis.

This isn't a game with skin and there shouldn't be a "class" that "calls the shots" at all. That is not representative government. Even the original system of voting by property owners was uniform, not an oligarchy of high income earners paying the highest taxes.

If you want to stop a system based on looting then denounce the looting on principle and advocate a limited government that prohibits it. Jumping into the middle of a welfare state and conceding the looting premise, while advocating an impossible 'reform' consisting of victims having a "say" in their own torment, while giving more "say" to wealthy liberals, is typical Pragmatist avoiding of principles. Even if this bizarre, contradictory and immoral scheme could be imagined to "work" to get what you seem to want, your enemies are not going to allow you to disenfranchise them in the name of reform. That is a consequence of their premise that the looting is moral, which you won't challenge. How do you expect to put over such a blatant political end-run around their fundamental purpose without denouncing it on principle? Demanding that your dedicated enemies give up their power is not a strategy to convince anyone.

But aren’t you missing my point that promoting individualism philosophy to people has failed to stem the tide of collectivism- you don’t even get the attention of the vast majority of people. My point is in order to get their attention, drastic things like economic collapse are needed. Once you get their attention, the speech of John Galt has a shot at being understood and accepted.

In the meantime each person can adopt and live by rational principles, which I try to do. But we live in fascist societies that take what I can make every day to support their collectivism. If they didn’t take my freedom, I wouldn’t care what idiotic philosophies they adopted. The characters of Francisco, Ragnar, and John Galt withdrew their support from collectivism and forced the people to see how collectivism failed- and got their attention. Only then were they at least open to listening to Galt

You can stand on a soapbox and preach objectivism while the country turns openly socialist, but So few people are listening that it’s not going to prevent a collapse in our lifetimes.

Hiding in plain sight seems a better approach. At least you get a better life now while u are alive.

You forget that when the founders set the government up you only voted if you were a property owner. All I am suggesting is that you have to have skin in the game if you are going to be in the class that gets to call the shots.

You have to have an income to pay income taxes. You are not addressing the principles. We have a right to vote for a representative government; rights do not depend on paying taxes; 'one man one vote' does not mean pure democracy and "mob rule" under a proper, representative government that is the opposite of that, having more of a "say" in how we are looted is not a principle of moral government, and wishing and demanding that your dedicated opponents not vote is not a solution to anything..

What people think is right depends on the prevailing ideas accepted in a society. If challenging basic premises did not work we never would have had the Enlightenment and would still be in the Dark Ages. When a mob is descending on you with pitch forks it is too late; there is no mind in that to appeal to. Changing minds takes time, knowing what is right, and knowing how to communicate it. There is no substitute, including futile attempts at a "solution" demanding that your opponents not be allowed to vote unless they have an income, as most liberals do, and insisting that having a "say" in your own demise is a principle of proper government.

Appealing to what is claimed to "work" without regard to fundamental principles providing the criterion of what it means to "work" is Pragmatism and is hopeless as a refutation of altruism and collectivism. As has been said many times here and ignored, collectivism has demonstrated its failures over and over for more than a century which has made no difference to those with an altruistic premise.

Ayn Rand knew very well that the logic of the plot in Atlas Shrugged was playing out in this country. She gave the reasons why, which is how she knew how to write the plot. Ignoring the philosophy that made that possible while aping the plot in calling for nihilistic 'strikes', ant-intellectual appeals to "emotion", and resorting to Pragmatism will lead you to run out of last ditch attempts two weeks before an election as you wonder "what can we do now" one last time.

My proposition never said anything about income....just taxes extracted.

Because challenging the basic premises never seems to work the mob always ends up extracting the money from their betters.

You are right that this war isn’t won in a few weeks. I do think as a matter of observation that whether or not AR INTENDED AS as a work of fiction, it is turning out to be more of a documentary

As you know from earlier discussions, I think that the most effective way to get people to think is to point out the failures of the collectivists. A philosophy of individualism , based in reality, will actually work better than one based on collectivism

I do not "equate equity before the law with voting power". Laws specifying voting procedures are one part of the law. A government representing the people who live under does require voting rights. The government represent represents everyone and is supposed to adopt procedures protecting eveyone's rights, not large bank accounts and tax payments. There is no "right" to determine how a government functions based on amount of income with the wealthy disenfranchising everyone else..

Felons also lose their freedom when they are sent to jail. Punishment for crime does not mean we don't all have the same natural rights.

You continue to confuse collectivism with a proper government. Everyone has a right to vote in a representative government. No one has a right to vote to loot others. Arbitrarily giving "the most say" to those who "have the most extracted" does not address the problem. Giving more "say" to wealthy leftist like Sorros, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Barach Obama, and the beneficiaries of the Clinton Foundation is not a solution to anything and evades the principles on which proper government is based. The rights of the individual come from his nature as a rational being, not his income taxes.

Nor does it make sense to even propose such a scheme. The looters are getting away with their looting because it is ingrained in the popularly accepted notions of altruism and collectivism. Telling them they can't vote (despite the high incomes of many of them) because their victims want more of a "say" evades their false premises and does nothing to counter them. They are not going to stop voting just because you don't want them to and won't refute their false premises. If, in fantasy, you think you can stop them by telling them they shouldn't have so much "say" in how much they take, then why not challenge their basic premises to begin with?

You equate equity before the law with voting power. Rights to property and to freedom from imprisonment in courts have nothing to do with voting. Assigning voting power to individuals based on the volume of taxes extracted from them is not selling votes. People almost never pay taxes voluntarily. It is extracted under threat of force.

Whoa...hang on a minute......felons can't vote. Not everyone has the same rights. If government is going to extract taxes from citizens there needs to equity in the ability to decide where the money goes and those from whom is extracted the most, should have the most say. There is absolutely no way some non working deadbeat should have the same vote as the earners who pay taxes.

You continue to equate voting within a representative government with welfare statism. It isn't true. Voting for representation does not mean robbery, and welfare "deadbeats" are not the only ones voting for statism and collectivism.

Equality before the law does not mean equal ability, effort, or income. Individuals have rights because of their nature as rational beings, not by how much government they can afford to buy, which itself implements statism.

The right to vote does not depend on vote-buying.

I disagree one-man-one-vote is Mob rule particularly if there's not equality among the group of people you're talking about and we most certainly do not have equal citizens in this country some of us contribute and some of us are deadbeats. The deadbeats do not need to be voting. All they are going to do is vote themselves Representatives who will continue to rob the rich and give to the poor.

This is not a matter of utilitarianism. No such calculations are required to know that individuals have rights, including the right to vote, regardless of career or income. 100 or 1000 janitors or 6 engineers may very well be worth in income more than a doctor, but economic "market valuation" has nothing to do with their rights.

"One man one vote" is not "mob rule". Voting is a method of selecting representation; it does not mean that government is unlimited or a mob can do anything it wants to. A moral society must have a limited government protecting the rights of the individual. The right to vote is in inherent in a government that represents the people, but it does not mean that a mob can properly vote for anything it wants regardless of the rights of the individual and regardless of limits on governmental actions and prescribed procedures. Voting to determine representation does not mean pure democracy.

There is no rational basis for "voting shares" based on contributions of anything. Government is not a corporation "owned" by those who pay taxes or otherwise "sacrifice".

"Society" is not a "floating abstraction", it is a valid abstraction referring to a number of individuals associated with, in this context, a common culture in a nation. It is misused as a floating abstraction by those claiming to represent interests or 'rights' of a society as if it were an entity.

Noting, also, that very many very non-mobish but snobbish people also get stuff from the government. Right now, I am reading The Wise Men by Isaacson and Thomas. It is about Avrill Harriman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and others who moved easily from Wall Street to the State Department. I do not condemn them for that prima facie but I do underscore ewv's point that political change depends on a philosophical shift across our common culture ("society"). The government has such favors to grant. The solution is to create a truly limited government. But that depends on a change in perceptions by mlllions of other people. It requires a philosophical revoiution in the implict metaphysics and epistemology of the broader culture. In other words, it requires a new Renaissance.

Ayn Rand only attempted a sketch at how to fund a government without coercion. Selling voting shares would provide voluntary payments in return for a tanglible benefit and give the votes to those who have earned them -- in a free society. In our welfare-statist halfway house, yes, you are right, many wealthy people got their money from "rent seeking" through various government interactions. But that does not change the essential fact that selling voting shares would provide a voluntary payments to the government to fund its necessarily limited functions.