Sebastien

I haven't done much reading in this forum (I have a learning impairment), but I have an argument.
Capitalism cannot be inherently racist because Capitalism is not an individual person.
We might invoke the concept of structural racism, as being a disembodied phenomenon.
But in order to understand structural racism, we need to understand that every structure is constructed by individuals.
Structural racism is a legacy of the work and actions of individuals.
Capitalism is actually not conducive to racism, because the primary activities in Capitalism are production and circulation.
Production is not racist because commodities are made for everyone. Circulation is not racist because if you have money you can buy commodities.
If some companies will not hire racial and ethnic minorities, because they are racist, there will be others who do not discriminate.
If some stores will not sell to racial and ethnic minorities, there will be others who do.
If all companies and stores are discriminating, this does not mean capitalism is racist. It simply means that all current existing companies and stores discriminate.
Capitalism actually does a lot to destroy racism. It was the capitalist north that offered jobs to freed slaves who moved from the south to the north. It was the capitalist manufacturing sector which employed large numbers of black people in the fifties and sixties.
Capitalism is not inherently racist. People are racist.

As far as tyranny is concerned,
I personally wish for the United States to never be tyrannical.
This is primarily because I myself do not want to be a victim of tyranny.
But I also value the freedom of others, not because I am an altruist,
but because I think it is right and just for others to be happy and free.
Why would we Objectivists want capitalism if it wasn't capitalism for everybody?
Our interest in a free society comes from our adherence to the truth and beauty of the idea,
not because we value other people's freedom more than our own.

The Laws of Biology,
Ayn Rand made a small fortune writing on her philosophy of Objectivism
and integrating its principles and values in her fiction works.
She personally had a lot to gain from speaking truth that she held dear.
We Objectivists are not being altruists by wanting to promote her ideas.
It is in our own interests for others to be happy and lead good lives.
We take a sense of pride from promoting principles we deem to be sound.
The fact that these principles are helpful to others does not constitute altruism.
Ayn Rand always said it is not wrong to help people,
as long as you know that you are not morally obligated to
and that helping others is not the primary purpose of your existence.
Most people on this forum and in the institutions promoting Objectivism
work for a living,
or if they are young, plan on working for a living.
Sharing Objectivism with others is something that interests us on the side.
It is in our interest. Each of us has a selfish interest in helping others learn.
Otherwise, it would be impossible for an Objectivist to become a teacher.
As soon as you choose helping others as a value, it is in your interest to help others.
But that comes after your decision to live primarily for yourself.

@Sebastien, your addressing this post brings to light the omission of what is a "Rite of Passage". In many cultures, this is a ceremony marking a passage from boyhood to manhood, or a transition from a girl to a woman.
As conceptual beings, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology refers to various approaches young minds take when acquiring new concepts. She outlines several approaches. 
Perhaps what I'm asking potentially amounts to wishful thinking. Still the fact such approaches can be articulated implies a superior approach can be desired and sought after.

I would suggest that instead of a brief, concentrated rite of passage, we need an ongoing process of pointing children in the right direction by precept and example.
Bad ideas do a lot to hold people back from the conceptual level.  As better ideas spread, we will get better results.
To the extent that we also write and talk, we will help the process along. 

I would question the quality of the Objectivist content in contrast to what the talk-show host uses in bringing in and holding new listeners.
The Mark Scott Show was what introduced me to Ayn Rand's materials, and I had listened to it for a long time before I made the connection. Why? Because what the guy said made sense.
He talked about current issues and connected them to the relevant principles, and only then might he point out the origin of the principle under examination. In exchange he made his listeners stronger thinkers by challenging their premises and encouraging them to question their convictions in an inviting rather than threatening way.

dream_weaver
If your line of argument is sound, which I think it is,
instead of measuring the amount of material when deeming Objectivist content as dear or less dear,
measure the number of Objectivists.
If there are fewer Objectivists than conservatives,
it is not because Objectivism is becoming less dear,
it is because choosing Objectivism requires more courage than choosing conservativism.
Therefore, those who remain strictly Objectivist will be stronger thinkers who did not fall off the map when it came time to vote either for Republican or Democrat.
This is good for us. We are America's Persecuted Minority.

I’m interested in learning how Objectivists approach the topic of heuristics, since it is used by critics of reason to downplay or invalidate reason. 

Nice to meet you Sebastien.  Neat and tidy conceptualization... very important for proper thought.
Query:  Why do some tend to avoid neat and tidy conceptualization?  What is achieved by "avoiding" it?  What motivations are at play?  The left will conflate and equivocate and provide arguments which are semi-formed, confusingly self-contradictory and anti-conceptual... how does a person adhering to reason "argue" against a position which inherently eschews neat and tidy thought?  In the end I suppose being clear in your own mind is more important than worrying about another's lack of understanding.
 
Keep thinking clearly and critically. 
 
Wisely observed.  Some would see "all companies and stores discriminating" and conclude that must be the result of cause and effect of an economic system on the culture of the people... this of course is a laughable error.  Many cultures of the world included racism, tribalism, etc. ... one can easily conclude from the same observation "all companies and stores discriminating" is the result of the culture of the people (arising from religion, ancestral stories, myths, dogmatic indoctrination by parents and teachers, countless other factors) and not an "effect" of capitalism.  In fact, the truth of it, the reality may be that a flawed culture having discovered capitalism, may not have been exposed to capitalism long enough for the inertia of the culture to have been eroded.
In science, as in logic, one must be careful to understand that statistical or perceived "correlation" does not as of a logical necessity point to a cause and effect, although cause and effect of course often leads to correlation, analysis of a correlation requires a neat and tidy mind to understand it.
 
The "Left" will see the persistence of racism in a culture, and conclude that the "capitalist system" is racist.  But this is NO MORE logical than concluding that the "capitalist system" is "religious" simply because religion persists, for example, in the U.S. 
A scientific mind might see the apparent lack of a capitalist system's imposing any effect on the culture of the people as an indicator that capitalism leaves people generally free to form their own culture... and perhaps that might not be such a bad observation.