The first threat to that world you want, is the suppression of the dissenting voice. Have you forgot Ayn Rand's clarion cry, "Give me liberty or give me death" ? When you resort to ad hominums, it belies your true goal. I would expect experienced Objectivists, such as yourself, to operate at a higher level of presentation; especially on a public forum where non Objectivists may find it instructive to see how civilized discourse in an Objectivist world might manifest itself. Are you familiar with the caveat; argument weak---shout like hell! ?
Junior Bush's bullying, in combination with the lack of strong dissenting public voices in the American Government and its citizenry, are creating a major threat to civilization. Why have large numbers of people in the rest of the world found it necessary to demonstrate against US decisions and subsequent action in the Middle East? Please show me where marches in favour of US intervention have taken place. Do American's think that their leaders are unable to make poor choices?
IWhat subversive messages are being transmitted through American commercial television? I haven't watched television for 12 years, so I have no idea of what's going on there. Have Americans become the unwitting victims of their own governmentally controlled corporate media ?
Few are against capitalism Kurt. It's global corporatism that is scorned. How is support of a war promoted by US corporative interests, an Objectivist ideal? My interpretation of Objectivism calls for a minimization in the powers of government. Letting government into bed with business, has maximized the influence of government on all of our lives; regardless of what country we are citizens. Where have Objectivists spoken up against this use of force against the individual?
Muslims will be won over by education; many already have. Many live(d) in Iraq, and the goals they once set for themselves, have been completely destroyed. Saddam Hussein was only partly destroying them. George Bush has completed the task for many. Muslims are not brain dead. They developed their fierce repressive ancient tribal traditions, to ensure survival in the hostile desert climate. Already, education is bringing Muslims into the 21st century. There are always holdouts to change; Muslims are merely following a grand tradition. Human rights along with "science advances one funeral at a time". If Objectivists hold a benevolent view of human nature, why are some of them supporting the use of destruction, to solve a problem that has its roots in ignorance?
In the west, women have gained personhood, only recently. Proclaiming the suppression of women as one of the reasons to fight for Iraqi oil is pretty scurrilous. In the past, hasn't education been the successful upliftment technique for females, and other suppressed people, including children?
As for the Jews. Who are they? Are they defined by their religion or not? If they are; why do some Objectivists support one irrational group over another? If they're not, why do Jews not rename themselves. I smell perpetual war here.
Supporting Andre's frustrations with more war in the Middle East requires mixing too many premises. Palestine existed before 1900; before 1800 , and earlier. Is all that irrelevant? Is this in reality, just colonial war against another First Nations People?