OK JK you asked for it.

You asked, "are you utterly convinced that an Objectivist state created under Leonard Peikoff would not denigrate into a dystopian despotism – and how are you sure?"

I do not know Peikoff personally and I would not create a state, "under," any individual. On the other hand, I am absolutely convinced that a state based on rational, objective, secular principles would not so deteriorate. I find it interesting that you should ask this question as it has been much on my mind lately.

How I am sure is because the issue is one of right and wrong. What all of those secular disasters were missing was an objective code of morality. This is what the secular disasters and the religious disasters have in common. It's two wings of the same bird of prey as jg says. Right and wrong in all of the secular disasters is based on what is best for "society." What is best for society is determined by a few people who become despots because they have no outside source to determine right and wrong. Similarly the religious right and wrong is based on, "what God says." Unfortunately what God says is also subject to interpretation by equally despotic individuals who want to tell everyone else what to do.

The governments worldwide (our constitution is the best example in mankind's history) that do not devolve into either of these dystopias contain a third element. They contain a reality-based arbiter of right and wrong that is not invented by the government's leaders. This is the idea of individual rights and it is the only rational basis for a government. To the extent a government or an individual uses another basis, tyranny results. I am absolutely convinced that a government that really follows that foundation will not result in despotism.

On a related note, there has been much talk about the results of this election being due to a "moral" issue. It is said that people voted for Bush because they understand that we must return to a more moral society. In fact, this is true. However, most people seem to think that the only place to get a moral code is from a religion. This is false! If we can educate people that there is a secular, rational, moral code based on reality and individual rights we will be well on the way to eliminating the tyrannical aspects of the USA.

I *did* ask for it -- and you delivered. Individual rights is a great example of something beyond piety that has set our system apart.

I'm not really familiar with Mr. Peikoff, but the few times I have heard him have put me off. I would call myself a devotee of Ayn Rand but have never been impressed with any of the official representatives of the Objectivist community who have tried to implement her agenda.

I haven't paid close attention, and it is quite possible I missed something, but I can see Peikoff & Company as modern Robespierres.

(Do buy and read "Our Oldest Enemy" you would really enjoy it!)

Peikoff does confound me once in a while, but he would be no Robespierre. From http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/robespierre.html:

"However, as his power increased, his popularity waned. On May 7 Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended the Convention to acknowledge the existence of God; on June 8 the inaugural Festival of the Supreme being took place. Meanwhile, the pace of the guillotine grew faster; public finance and government generally drifted to ruin, and Saint-Just demanded the creation of a dictatorship in the person of Robespierre."

Dictatorship, deity worship and anti-reason are the very things that Objectivists rail most strongly AGAINST.

I think what JK might have been getting at was how might the theories of objectivism break down when put into practice? Dagny's argument for the inclusion of individual rights as the defining difference is a great one, but what are these rights and how do you define them? Can you enumerate this objective, secular, reality based moral code? What happens when my individual rights bump into yours? How you deal with these issues is what determines how (reasonably) fair and just your system is in practice. I think objectivism looks so good partly because it is still a theory, not out in the practical and imperfect world. (Unless there is a working system of government based upon these philosophies of which I am unaware?) Basing government on objective principals and reality sounds great, even scientific, but then again, how objective are our scientific principals that explain reality? All scientific experiments must state their set up , point of reference and boundary conditions, for all measurements are subjective to these parameters. Gravity is not constant, but varies with distance, the speed of light is dependant on the medium through which it passes. Frame of reference changes local reality. How you would define an absolute reality and measure against it is beyond me, and how you would set up a system of governance based upon it seems equally daunting.

Ever since the reknowned underachiever Werner Heisenberg successfully passed off his opinion that certainty of knowledge about subatomic physics (and therefore all science) is impossible on PRINCIPLE, the progress of scientific discovery and the scientific method itself have been needlessly sidetracked. I am confident this departure is temporary, but progress suffers now as a result.