You may be interested to know that Joseph Smith taught the primacy of existence; reason over faith, etc.

Everything in Mormonism, including claims to God’s power/knowledge is rooted in existence or reality.

Mormonism teaches that God exists, has always existed, inside reality.

Libertarianism is generally a big tent party of “no!” If there are enough things you don’t want, you can usually find a home in popular libertarianism. This kind of negativism can be very corrosive.

There are a number of reasons I think Objectivism is not a comprehensive solution for happiness. I’ll list a few below:

1. Objectivism stresses the study of philosophy. While philosophy is important, most individual people have much more to gain by perfecting a career and the nuts and bolts of dealing with external reality. This doesn’t invalidate Objectivism as a philosophy, it simply means it won’t solve our worldly problems and doesn’t substitute for thinking and individual achievement. All of these things are stressed in Rand’s artistic credo, but can be lost in the study of her philoophy. Mormonism has a strong career ethos that rivals Objectivism.

2. Most social skills and social interaction are learned in a completely different way than “rational thinking”. We have mirror neurons that mimic and emulate. Family structure and positive role models are important because they get at how we really learn social behavior. Nurturing families are a cornerstone of Mormonism. Interestingly, Rand also places a high value on heroes. We should choose our heroes carefully and have them in many different realms of life because this is how we really learn most interpersonal behavior.

3. Control of consciousness issues aren’t touched on in Objectivism at all. People have a whole set of neuropsychological inclinations that were framed by our evolutionary history and have nothing to do with a successful life in modern society. How we deal with these evolutionary appetites and inclinations has a lot to do with how happy we are. Religion is not just primitive philosophy, it is also a primitive psychological adaptation to stressful environments and the unknown.

I don’t think the above issues are a problem for Objectivism as a philosophy. However, they are a problem for Objectivism as a social phenomenon and movement. They also point up many problems for people who are drawn to Objectivism as a kind of personal validation. Many of the struggles depicted in Rand’s novels are not accompanied by workable coping mechanisms in the philosophy.

Jim

Just kidding, of course. I know Kathy is enough woman to make a dozen men happy.