Ask the members of the many "collective brain" groups.
(Google it )

Yes, Rand makes the (obvious) point that there is no such thing as a collective brain. However, she connects this conclusion to an antecedent argument about the mind: Rand believed that the functions of the mind are volitional, rather than deterministic. She believed that individuals have the power to choose (forbidding coercion). Is this correct? If it is correct, are there other views which are also correct? What makes this argument correct? Some argue that the mind is a passive recipient of thoughts from a collective "mind" or higher "spiritual" plane. How is that wrong? Rand explained the alternative to thought and mind as emotion and whim. What, she might have argued, is the point of epistemology which required no validation of facts, no validation beyond general consensus? Consensus of what?

Consensus, agreement, and peace are possible only if choice is possible. If there is no choice, then agreement would not be agreement, but passive adaption to external stimuli - like a creature without a conceptual consciousness. Choice (volition) is necessary for agreement to occur because if there is no possibility for disagreement, then what kind of "agreement" can be made? The agreement of women to be married to whomever it is dictated they marry? The agreement of taxpayers to support the IRS? The agreement of taxpayers to support the Ground Zero mosque?

OK, so what about being practical? What about compromise? First, consensus among thinking men who are not defrauding each other is a legitimate consensus. The trader principle, mutual benefit, profit. "Being practical" in the context of compromise entails pragmatism, which enshrines compromise as a principle - a principle replacing mutual benefit. It seeks to mimic the legitimate agreement among proud, rational men with the shadow of fearful mind-games and posturing, blackmail, cheating, and fraud. Thus, volition (to agree) is within the individual who agrees - or chooses not to! How, then, can any legitimate agreement be reached, how can any agreement be possible, without volition? And how can volition be possible if not in an individual mind? Must no one disagree for anything to be legitimate?

I believe even a liberal would have to acknowledge these premises (as they would clearly not agree with other Objective claims). Since the liberal admits everyone need not agree to any given agreement, they must admit some "lesser" agreement legitimizes their claim: the majority. Now, in government, the individual members of the minority have unanimously agreed to uphold the decisions of the majority for majority votes. What some fail to realize is that this pertains to government only. The individual citizen votes and receives rationality or irrationality from government via the electoral votes. Rationality permits him the same freedom of choice in his dealings with other men. Irrationality permits him restrictions, rules, regulations, stimulus... But in his dealings with men, he still uses his own rational mind to choose... The enshrinement of majority has one purpose: political power. For what other purpose would vast amounts of money be spent to impress the minds of "the majority" but to implement the idea that the mind is a passive recipient of thoughts from their "mind"?

So I can run on any platform against individual rights, win more votes, and push an agenda that even those who did vote for me might not agree with? This is the ultimate deception, and one of the biggest scandals in recent history.