Both.

This is EXACTLY what I've been seeing for years. Too many people think, "I am a Republican, therefore I am an Objectivist." I have lost count at how many times people who consider themselves Objectivists argue for forced vaccination, a military draft, labor camps, etc. I see this as a big problem for the Objectivist movement. A lot of people just don't get it. I'm so glad to see somebody else comment on it. Thanks MaxCasey.

You cannot claim to be a logical positivist who denies the validity of mathematics. Ayn Rand's work similarly demands acceptance of certain fundamentals. She outlined them more than once. You cannot claim to be an Objectivist and a socialist, or a Christian, or a logical positivist. (In the "Principia Mathematica" by Russell and Whitehead, the Law of Identity is derived about eight proofs into the work.)

You can argue whether and to what extent corporations can be created as legal entities - artificial individuals with rights. Ayn Rand was ambivalent and ambiguous about gun control and capital punishment: she sketched some questions but had no answers and said so.

Ayn Rand's own personality also colors many discussions of her ideas. In a letter to John Hospers she denied differentiating her personal opinions from her work as a philosopher. So, when she condemned midi-skirts and women running for the office of President of the United States, those became elements of Objectivism to her. Others demurred. If we were speaking of Paul Feyerabend or Noam Chomsky, their personal opinions (and foibles) would be delineated from their formal presentations.

khalling wrote: "Ojectivists in general are not religious. However, one of the reasons Atlas Society formed was to be more open to the political realm and those of faith. Atlas Productions is promoting a book about Objectivism and faith as well Atlas Society.
An Ojectivist does not have to agree with every aspect of the philosophy as Rand nor agree to apply it identically."

1. Objectivists are atheists. You can accept certain elements of Objectivism and reject others, and be whatever you call yourself. But when it comes to fundamentals, the choice is Either-Or, A or non-A.

2. The Atlas Society was NOT formed to open up Objectivism to politics and religion but to take Objectivism to those who are still confused by those and other problems in popular culture:
"Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism was set forth in such works as her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, and in her brilliant non-fiction essays. Objectivism is designed as a guide to life, and celebrates the remarkable potential and power of you, the individual. Objectivism also challenges the doctrines of irrationalism, self-sacrifice, brute force, and collectivism that have brought centuries of chaos and misery into the lives of millions of individuals. It provides fascinating insights into the world of politics, art, education, foreign policy, science, and more, rewarding you with a rich understanding of how ideas shape your world. Those who discover Objectivism often describe the experience as life-changing and liberating." -- http://www.atlassociety.org/about-us

2.a. Everyone who does not know should know that the Atlas Society was formed over a disagreement between Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley over the utility and morality of sharing venues with libertarians. The attacks and replies are under the rubric "Fact and Value." The Atlas Society generally regards Objectivism as an "open" system available to extension and expansion in areas not addressed in the canonical works of Rand and others. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the existing works of Ayn Rand and publishes elucidations of them.

3. If you go to the Atlas Society and enter "religion" in the search box, you will not find any attempt to reconcile the two doctrines, but rather many clear statements about the limitations of religion. I was told verbally that John Aglialoro's son-in-law wrote a book reconciling Objectivism and religion and when I was told, I remembered reading about it briefly on the Atlas Society website. On the other hand, although Ayn Rand personally found homosexuality "disgusting" you can find "Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation" by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. The difference is that human sexuality is obviously more plastic than the laws of metaphysics.

4. Whether and to extent a person agrees with every "aspect" of any philosophy and yet remains an adherent depends on what you mean by "aspect." You cannot say that you are an Objectivist except that you feel that life is futile... that service to others is important... that taxation is necessary and proper for the existence of government... that morality is fine, but we must be practical...

I am here for the popcorn and the movie. I’m learning about Objectivism.

I would like to know if you can elaborate further on the statement ‘paid to troll’. I always suspected on another message board one of the members of being guilty of this. The member never answers direct questions and spouted the propaganda of the day. Is this a list somewhere of the organizations that pay for this type of work? It would be nice to back up suspicions with facts.

Objectivism of course is not a political party, but doesn't it go without saying that an avowed Republican or avowed Democrat, i.e., a person who actually believes in the platform of either or, cannot be philosophically an Objectivist? Republicans favor capitalism, or so many say, but eschew individual rights, and Democrats, or so many say, favor individual rights and eschew capitalism. And both are pragmatists who spend millions to gain government favors against market forces, espousing pragmatic solutions over principled pursuits. Libertarianism suffers fewer evils than either Republicans or Democratics, but it too embraces principles and approaches that are not Objectivist by any stretch. To me, the challenge is how to apply Objectivist principles in a wildly pragmatic world with mixed philosophies and approaches impacting short-term and long-terms business and personal decisions.

I don't think I've noticed any of the posts you mentioned, though I have seen some by obvious trolls that aren't worth mentioning.

On a personal experience level, I have encountered a few "Libertarians" who quoted Rand liberally (pun not intended) but seemed to have little grasp of her ideas. Instead, they either believed they could do whatever they wanted, or made a point of carrying out trivial "rebellions" in order to "prove" that they were "individuals". I can recall one who refused to wear a seat belt and insisted on driving 10-15 miles per hour over the speed limit. A complete slave to the state, who had no idea that she was so.

To get it out of the way, the original post on "trolls or ignorance" is too much like putting labels on people. The evolution of an Objectivist should not be discouraged. It is in no ones best interest.
Rand did not have Roark judge nor label Wynand for his failure to be what he might have become. Objectivism for its own sake is not the same as being a functioning Objectivist in a person's own daily life. To think otherwise is just that much more dogma. Any philosophy has to be something you can apply to living.
Next, Khalling is completely right about Marxism and environmentalism being more dangerous than religion for society. Actually, environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion of its own. Marxists recognize the need of people to have a higher being. Thus, they transition religions into more similar entities. From there, they move the masses into the UN's Gaia worship. Marxism and religion are merged, setting the stage for the ultimate worship of the world state. Is not Maurice Strong's temple to Gaia in Colorado, near where another poster said they have all those unused police cars sitting idle for Obama's visit? I would say with all that is facing thinking people, we need all the true or budding Objectivists we can get. Politics is a a shadow world of smoke and mirrors, where both sides have the same dastardly goals, which do not involve allowing reason nor free thinking people. .
I would not rule out a religious belief in Objectivism, but I would question organized religions where someone inserts themselves as go between for the believer. One needs to question the influence and rules of organized religion, and remember it is quite often more of a profit organization. Make sure you know what you are seeking or getting, and be true to yourself.

There is much marketing today designed to educate as to the meaning of Objectivism. Those who don't even understand the philosophy certainly cannot be called Objectivists; and those who can do not have such contradictions. As a rational philosophy, Obj.ism can easily address every political issue in fundamental terms. Let's hope a true Obj.ist will some day lead this country back to its roots.

I don't think a Statist can masquerade as an Objectivist any more effectively than I could pass myself off as a Progressive-Socialist. The facade would crack.

I would have to argue that anyone claiming to be a "pure" Objectivist is as much a religious fanatic as a passionate Atheist. In the case of the Objectivists, they choose to purposely ignore everything that does not have a simple, concrete explanation, and expunge any spiritual element from their thinking. I'm not even sure a real Objectivist would be willing to accept the principles of quantum physics, given the mystery element of what has to be accepted as naturally occurring unpredictability.

Rigid definitions of personal belief, treated as digital, black and white, either-or have a robotic perspective. Human beliefs can best be described as analogue in nature, with a certain amount of "fuzzy" overlap between discrete definitions.

There is no such thing as a "pure" Objectivist, or any other sort of political believer, as we all have thoughts that would be heresy to a purist. Live with it.

I think both. Trolls I can understand. Don't much like their interference in a meaningful discussion, though occasionally they offer a counterpoint that brings to the fore areas of a topic that helps to cement the logic of Objectivism.

The ignorant are what they are, but I have a real problem with the willfully ignorant. But what does the country comic say? 'You can't fix stupid',

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor (Says Wiki. Huh, I thought it was Heinlein.)

But that's not really fair. I'm not really saying "stupidity." More like "divergent thought."

A great many Objectivists hold divergent views. Not surprising since it is a philosophy that prizes the individual mind.

(Even among the national mouthpieces there was debate about voting Dem or Rep. until the Big O came along.)

Never-the-less that's the beauty of this site, don't you think? A chance to work out the kinks. A chance to see another side.
---
Sorry about the buttheads, but what can you do?
Well, of course you could knock off the Jew haters and conspiracy kooks, but where do you stop?

(Well, okay you could stop AFTER the Jew haters and conspiracy kooks at least, but...)

The other statists are the conservatives. They want to seal the borders, launch military attacks against civilians in geographic regions with Muslim pluralities, and give taxpayer support to prayer to Jesus. (Worshipping their God any way you chose is defined as "freedom of religion.")

They value their (nuclear) families as if cultural tradition were a moral mandate.

True Objectivists are rare here. For evidence of that, look at all the posts I created about Objectivism: few replies or comments.

I've encountered many trolls within the Objectivist community. Mostly on the Atlas Shrugged movie fb page. They're here....be sure of it...but don't stop expounding Objectivism. There are some here who are at the beginning of their journey as well.

Very few persons have taken a logic class and/or studied a rigorous subject. Those persons are liable to not have examined their axioms and therefore are more likely to espouse positions that are contradictory and speak to their unobserved emotions.

The acid test of a so-called Objectivist is whether that person is prepared to repudiate both the ethics of altruism and, more tangibly, altruism's political manifestation, its essential, economic-political concomitant: government currency. No "Objectivist" can advocate establishment or perpetuation of the institution of government currency (with its inherent implication of a legal-tender monopoly on what passes as "money"). On the other hand, no "statist" (or confirmed altruist) could envision any other approach to money than the establishment and perpetuation of a government currency

I have thought the same thing, MaxCasey. Sometimes, I think I'm on the wrong site because the views do not represent those of Ayn Rand. Other times, the comments do support her philosophy. So, it's probably both -- some are trolls; some are real fans.

Many great posts here, but it seems like there thoughts not brought into play. Like many of you I believe in Ayn Rand and her philosophy. But I agree that religion has brain washed much of the population. Historically our founding Fathers were Deist's not dogmatic Christians. much of our history we learned in school was propagandized. As a former Catholic I realized how much I was brainwashed into believing their dogma. To me the Gnostics were going in the right direction. Of course the programs on the History Channel do a okay job about the lost Gnostic texts but they give the wrong impression of who the Gnostic's were. I find that it is the most selfish of all spiritual movements. It is more about the individual raising his/her awareness to the highest levels possible. That why I consider it the same/similar to Rand's Philosophy. So, that's my belief. As mentioned from one of the commentator at the end of the program stated "if they had won out against the orthodoxy we would be living in a much different world." Unfortunately it didn't happen, and we live in a fracture society and world. Today, the current regime is try very hard to secularize all segments of society. They believe they are doing the rational way, but just like in Atlas Shrugged it is governmental socialist cronyism.

I think that you can be a thing or agree with parts of anything without it becoming the philosophy that drives your entire life. Doesn't make you a troll or necessarily ignorant.