Report Is Objectivism Hopelessly Naive in Political Philosophy Posted October 29, 2012 · Edited October 29, 2012 by tadmjones A lot of good stuff here that will take me some time to digest. But let me put my comment about naivete of Objectivism in a nutshell: Galt's Gulch. It is clearly a Utopian ideal. Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt's Gulch could not happen in real life because it would be impossible to find 50 or 100 or 500 (or, I believe, even 5 or 10) people who not only are genius movers-and-shakers but also would strictly adhere to Objectivist morality. My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible. Having rephrased the question, let me take a shot at answering it. Comments here and my own ponderings have led me to see a possible solution. I'd like to know what others think of it. Here it is: Objectivism is not expected to be a natural state of being. Rather, it is intended to be an ideal state that democratic institutions would strive to acheive if the public were to accept Objectivism as the ideal. The goal of those on this forum is to educate people to this end. The fact that nobody acheives Objectivist (or Christian or any other moral system) ideals perfectly does not mean that they should not strive to use them as the basis for institutions (i.e., the law, the police and the courts). I agree, was actually formulating a response based on this very idea, thankfully you happen to be more articulate than I.or eh me.