JASKN

No person who valued individual rights would ever have voted for any politician making the various promises. Quite the opposite, such men would have voted against anyone making all the various promises American politicians have made over the decades.
The reason politicians make these promises is that it gets them elected. The reason it gets them elected is because the voter demand that the government should violate other people's rights and hand them (the voter) some benefit. In terms of action, it is the voters (at large) who are looking desperately for someone who will stand up and promise to violate other people's rights, while insisting that they won't violate the rights of those who vote for them. The voter votes for these people instead of voting against them. The voter -- usually demanding the impossible -- is either ignorant or foolish. 
You can try not promising things to the voter, and he won't vote for you. So much for that idea.

This is a misreading of history. The breakdown of monarchy paved the way. The breakdown of monarchy begins with the growing realization that people ought to be equal before law, that people have rights, and that monarchy is a system that routinely violates people's rights. There was no keeping this genie in a bottle, and yearning for the good old days of monarchy -- which they most certainly were not.
The only question was: how would the world evolve away from monarchy? Some systems -- like the British -- did an above-average job of by:
growing the rights afforded to their citizens, keeping some control over the exercise of power by the aristocracy, creating a mechanism where non-aristocrat businessmen could become an alternate center of power, and creating a pathway from business into aristocracy Others, like Russia dragged their heels. 
Post WW-I, ex-soldiers, and an aroused population were ready and itching for change. In places like Britain, it came in the form of voting rights etc. In places like Russia it erupted into Communism. To blame the weak liberal-democratic movements of the time for the emergence of communism is to read history wrong. People were not clear how to fashion an alternative to monarchy (can you blame them, when most modern Americans still don't have a clue). So, there was a fight between competing visions. In many places, the statist vision won. The short-term existence of a liberal-democracy in such places just shows the weakness of that side in the fight. It does not show that that side created the other. In contrast, the strength of the other liberal democracies flows from the strength of their liberal-democratic vision...  which flows from the fact that they had a deeper history of such movements, and had already taken many strides toward being liberal democracies.
This is a misreading of our current situation. The man on the street does not look to the declaration of independence. That is precisely why we have most of our political problems: because he has no clue, and would throw the declaration into the garbage bin of history given half a chance.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/06/14/302-hijacking-an-old-danger-made-new-again/

If it's useful, is it altruistic?

I think even this is granting too much, because it sounds like Objectivists will typically be in some general area within the "sense-of-life" space, even though they vary within their sub-space, and even though there maybe outliers who are in far-flung sub-spaces. (i.e. it is a "clustered-sense-of-life" hypothesis).
A good null-hypothesis is: the variability of sense-of-life among all self-identifying Objectivists is similar to the variability of sense-of-life among the general population.
From my experience, this null-hypothesis appears closer to reality than the "clustered-sense-of-life" hypothesis.

I'm not so certain, based on some of the arguments I've seen in this thread...
Have you considered the possibility that Yaron Brook has something other than an Objectivist sense of life, due to his failure to sufficiently integrate his explicit philosophy?

Yaron Brook has gone on record saying that Rand would dislike a lot of the music he listens to, like Rock music for example. It's a nonissue.
I like all sorts of music but dislike country for being too repetitive and melodramatic. It doesn't have philosophical significance. The lyrics of a particular song can have depraved messages, but even then, I really enjoyed some of Taylor Swift's songs for a long time - until I paid attention to the lyrics. Lyrics can often be overlooked or unnoticed, and subliminal messages are a marketing myth.
Rand wrote in Romantic Manifesto that music cannot be objectively analyzed - right now. She said it would require a scope of psychological knowledge of how elements of music affect people that we don't possess. We'd have to know whether country music necessarily correlates to a depraved philosophy or misguided values, or it causes such things. We don't know anything like that, we can't  know right now, and philosophical implications of music are only speculation as a result.
*shrug* Rand said herself that musical taste can only be viewed as "subjective", until scientific knowledge expands. Music would have to stop being music for it to be objectively bad. It would have to cross the line from music to noise, which includes ceasing to have rhythm or including sounds too obnoxious and irritating (high pitched or "scratchy") .

I'm surprised a campaigning presidential candidate would say that. Do you have a source?
I've seen a video where Cruz responded to a similar question, and he didn't say outright that an atheist shouldn't vote for him in that particular video. However, he did dodge the question and use it as an opportunity to pander to his Christian voter base about how atheists should hope their president has Christian values. Is that what you're referring to?

Given the complexity of the human mind, the meet-between of theory and concrete with regard to music will be hard to generalize across many people.
A personal example: Radiohead. I developed an interest during a period where my internal outlook was grim, and legitimately "loved" listening, in the "twisted" way that I could love anything at the time. As my life outlook changed, the association to that grim period and the grim music style kept me from listening, but over time I enjoyed them again for the "good" reasons: the music is interesting and complex and has all the elements of music that I enjoy otherwise, except that it is malevolent (although, over time their age has softened that). Furthermore, now I like the mental throwback to that former period in my life! So, they are still one of my favorite bands -- my chosen philosophy is Objectivism, but I love a "malevolent" band.

But, what if we observe that many people have a similar response to a certain song or painting? There's an objective observation. But, what kinds of people are they? More objectivity. Even with yourself, there are certain objective conclusions you can draw about your own emotional reactions. Other conclusions are not so clear.
Music is so emotional, and it might be useful to say that your reaction is "subjective." But, we know that all of reality is objective, so what you're really terming "subjective" is simply the unknown reasons behind the emotional responses of your mind.

Given the complexity of the human mind, the meet-between of theory and concrete with regard to music will be hard to generalize across many people.
A personal example: Radiohead. I developed an interest during a period where my internal outlook was grim, and legitimately "loved" listening, in the "twisted" way that I could love anything at the time. As my life outlook changed, the association to that grim period and the grim music style kept me from listening, but over time I enjoyed them again for the "good" reasons: the music is interesting and complex and has all the elements of music that I enjoy otherwise, except that it is malevolent (although, over time their age has softened that). Furthermore, now I like the mental throwback to that former period in my life! So, they are still one of my favorite bands -- my chosen philosophy is Objectivism, but I love a "malevolent" band.

Sometimes I fear that discussions like these get a little bit lost in the abstract. How about a concrete scenario for everyone to consider? (This will be detail-lite, which might not serve everyone's interest, but I like to try to keep things simple for as long as possible.)
Suppose a guy who grows up enjoying heavy metal music. In his late-teens or early-20s, he discovers Ayn Rand/Objectivism and finds himself convinced that this philosophy is correct. He sets about reassessing various features of his life as he integrates this new philosophy.
One day he signs into an Objectivist message board and greets the community, introducing himself as a "big fan of heavy metal." Suppose someone else responds and (rightly or wrongly) says, "Heavy metal? That's not life-affirming; it's not compatible with Objectivism, and you have a lousy sense of life!"
How do we assess this situation, and how ought our hero respond (externally and/or internally)?

A sudden death so young will always be extremely disorienting. Most people have some rough long-term view of how their life will unfold: not in the details, but in the general category and direction. The view fits integrates with one's purpose in life (or purposes -- plural -- as most would see it). A death means the plans (the concrete one) are wrecked. It's not uncommon for one reaction to be a defiant: "this doesn't change anything... I will stick to my plan". Denial? Sure, but like any emotional reaction, it has its place as long as it does not get out of hand.
I agree with the other posters: as a friend, your role right now is to be supportive. Perhaps read up on the "stages of grief", to understand the process. Do not try to rush things. For this to play out over a year would be unsurprising. I'd say: watch your friend and support him all the way to the point where he reaches a phase of depression and self-pity. That will be the most difficult, because the nature of that phase is to push people away by pissing them off. If you value the friendship, stick with that too, and you will hopefully see it wane. That would be the time to help him to the final stage: acceptance.

happiness,
I can really sympathize with your friend in this loss. When we were both 41, my lover died. We had been together since we were 19.* (I’m now 67.) He was everything to me. My situation was different in that it was not a sudden death, I had a couple years in which to take care of him best I could, and to fight the disease, though the case was hopeless.
Your friend is likely more with her and with them as their only world that most mattered or can matter. I am unable to fully understand the Facebook aspect. (I’m on Facebook, and it has been personally satisfying.) I think of what he is doing as akin to things we did in grief traditions before this era of electronic social media. Our ways were more private. What he’s doing is a little disturbing, but if he lives a good while, he may come back to value here, explicitly recognizing it and embracing it.
From what you have told us of his age, and assuming the possibility of long life, I’d say from my experience that (3) is the wrong choice if it is from this pain alone. Long life, with enough health and memory, is good. That’s what I found. After 5 years, I successfully tried for (1). But that likely will take time, a year, maybe 3. Meanwhile, there is putting one foot in front of the other. Inside, I’m sure she is with him now and that she will never leave him. In time he may have his clear an warm memories of her, without all the pain. The choice (2) will be alright for now I imagine. We remake decisions as we change, and we do change in some organic ways, tied to our past and to the further goodness of which it can be made a part.
I hope your companionship can be a help to him and that you will see him someday happy again.
Stephen

I think of "Randroids" as Reidy's formulation: rationalistic "proponents" of Objectivism. Taken in this way, the term is perfect -- it walks and talks like Objectivism, but in fact it doesn't understand Objectivism at all.

I kind of like Salon.com. It helps me see just how relevant they really think Objectivism is. Actions speak louder than words on that point, or so it appears to me.

They mention an article she wrote about dating, and though I haven't read it, I like the spirit of the title: "Date the Atlas, not the Shrugged"

I think of "Randroids" as Reidy's formulation: rationalistic "proponents" of Objectivism. Taken in this way, the term is perfect -- it walks and talks like Objectivism, but in fact it doesn't understand Objectivism at all.

I'm closing this thread, until I know what I'm talking about.

Far from fading away, I've been seeing more advocates of Rand's Objectivism in the last few years. Maybe it's because I'm looking for them. But I consider this passage she wrote in For The New Intellectual instructive:
But the New Intellectuals have an inestimable advantage: they have reality on their side. The difficulties they will encounter on their way are not stone barriers, but fog: the heavy fog of passive disintegration, through which it will be hard for them to find one another.
Personally, I don't find a lack of criticisms out there. The folks over at Salon offer plenty of it without demanding a microphone be provided.

Oh, hah... I totally missed it with her name.

HD be careful about putting too much emphasis on "scarcity" of the raw resource "lying" about ready to be found, with the property right arising from the creation of values incorporating them.
Imagine the Oceans were infinitely deep and filled with fresh water.
 
How would you argue that there could be property rights to any of the infinitely non-scarce resource?
If you go down from the city and bring a glass of water back with you, what makes it yours?  Certainly NOT, the scarcity (actually lack thereof) of the infinite store of water in the Oceans.
The water you have in your glass has value, by virtue of what?  If a thirsty man in the city can see the infinite Ocean, why would your bringing a glass of water to him constitute a value?  Is the mere vision of the untouched and unreachable resource in the distance, already a value or is it entirely worthless until... until what?
You can imagine a quasi infinite store of any resource (the universe is TEEMING with such stores and they are "there" ... waiting to be wished into your pocket, or obtained... how?).  Energy itself in the universe, in comparison to each human life is effectively infinite as well... it's everywhere and the scale of its magnitude is stupefying.
What gives you a right to property in the complete absence of scarcity of the raw resources?  Answer this first and much will follow.
.........................
Questions to consider:
What then actually IS "scarce"?  Certainly the time each of us has is scarce... we ARE finite and have only so much time to spend on each thing, on pursuing and creating values.  Certainly the raw resources "out there" are effectively infinite (including energy), yet are valueless to you, [ironically the most abundant stores in the universe are currently valueless to you]... until ... until what?
What DOES it mean to CREATE value?

I have corresponded with Leonard Piekoff on several occasions regarding his podcast specifically, as for a time we were keeping an updated transcript of his questions in one of the forum's threads. Usually, it would take a month or two to receive a reply. I believe he has an assistant who helps manage his emails.
Prior to that, like you I had emailed a question to which I did not receive a reply, and which was not answered on his podcast. Recently, he has announced that he will be making even fewer podcasts than his current every other week. So, your chances of receiving an answer may now be slim, unless perhaps it is a topic of special interest to him.
Of course, one of our longtime forum members takes questions, too!
 

An election like this brings voter's democratic power into clear focus. Many Libertarians (and Bernie and Trump) will say that America is ruled by party elites and cliques, but this misses an important fact: that those elites rule by sanction of the masses, and within parameters set by the masses. The idea that politicians and their "crony capitalists" set the direction of the country is a myth. The American voter does. 
This is not the first time the voter has tried to push hard. Prohibition had a large enough push to become a constitutional amendment. Populist reaction after the great-depression allowed FDR to rule like a king. Programs like public-schools, social-security and government-supported healthcare have widespread voter support.
 

I'm feeling a bit humbled for my posts made on another thread. I never thought Trump would get this far, but it is what it is. I feel even sorrier for the state of so many Americans who find Trump so appealing. In past presidential elections, my vote has never contributed to the victory (in terms of electoral votes) of any candidate, as Wisconsin always swings Democrat, at least in my time. I, too, would rather see a choice of Cruz vs Rodham-Clinton. My preference for Cruz is based on a few good reasons, and his religiosity is not one of them. I can overlook his evangelical blather. But if I'm faced with a vote for Trump, as opposed to Hilary, I'm voting third party, and my conscience will feel better. I know many people disapprove of third party voters, but that's how I exercise my franchise, and avoid regret. If Wisconsin swings Republican, and I thought I helped put Trump in power, I would feel worse than humbled.