Jeff Palmer

Thank you fo the reasoned response. Who out in the world is advocating Objectivism in a manner consistent with your expectations? I see no one relating objectivist concepts in a real life daily discussion. I see ARI as a think tank (for lack of better term) that does not publish or advocate for objectivist ideas and potential "real" polices for use in the daily life of the republic. They preach to the baptized. (slight pun) Would it make more sense to turn toward them, or encourage an organization such as ARI to bring them into their fold to assist in their mission of changing the culture? The people (not me, I am still trying to absorb the concepts of Rand's thinking), with a clear understanding of the objectivist philosophy should be publishing clear reasoned ideas which can be discussed and implemented. An ARI paper on police reform, or rebuilding the communities destroyed would be a start. A full page "ad" in the newspapers of cities damaged by rioting. A clear plan of objectivist thinking, reasoned thought, on how to free the citizens from their inner city plantations. On how to free themselves from people who only see them as a vote, and people who cannot think or take care of themselves. I'm sure ARI could solicit support to produce and publish. The philosophy would then be real to people. (Not some Rand cult rantings) Clear, reasoned and productive answers and actions people could engage on. If 10% of Rand's ideas could be acted on this way, it would be an improvement to start more conversations about how the reasoned ideas of the philosophy could improve the citizens lives, their futures and the wealth of their communities. (See camels nose in tent...) And Yaron is not the answer. I may be wrong, but I find Yaron too removed. He complains about Trump and the conservatives. (There is plenty to complain about) But conservatives are not burning and looting. He complains, correctly as well, about the left, but in reality, which side has at least a minimum of something we could talk about with each other. I am not a Trump fan. (I only believe in liberty and freedom. Not a party type of guy) But Hillary's lies about Benghazi gave me no alternative. (As a former Marine Security Guard, I have been responsible for the lives of Americans, and the "ambassador". Blaming a YouTube video and not supporting the ambassador's request for more security should be a crime. But that's just me) Voting for the lesser of two evils. Yes, but it is real world reality. And Gary Johnson sounded more like a democrat. I don not know who could be the voice and/or face for these ideas, but if we ( as objectivists) don't start stepping into the sunshine with our fellow citizens, then how are we think anyone is going to listen. Just my voices speaking.

I listen and watch to the courses on the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) website. I read and contemplate the many books on objectivism, and listen/watch Yaron Brook's (the best known face of ARI) podcasts and YouTube sessions. I have embraced objectivism as my philosophy for my life. But it appears to me, from listening/watching, especially Yaron, objectivists are bystanders to life ("we are just philosophers") and have no "skin in the game" of real life. If the deep thinkers truly wanted to advance the objectivist philosophy, organizations like ARI would be creating and producing objectivist papers. Objectivists answers to tax law, policing, government policies, foreign relations, etc. This would be real life objectivist ideas and answers for peoples daily real life. For people to discuss and advocate, instead of just watching. The "Atlas Society" has an office in Washington, D.C. (WDC). Where is ARI's? I'm not advocating for the Atlas Society, and nor ARI have to have an office in WDC. But where are the ideas for "real" daily life from ARI. They are the official keepers of Rand's flame and thinking. How do you advance the thinking and philosophy if the discussion is only within an insulated group? Does ARI have skin in the game, or are they vocal bystanders?