Rand's immediate group of brilliant people, including the aforementioned Alan Greenspan and others were laughingly called "The Collective" by Rand, as being an inside joke. (Yes, she did have a sense of humor.)
As to the organization being built on personality, that is a tougher proposition than it appears by looking at it casually. Yes, Rand's personality and more importantly her intellect created an almost cult-like devotion. But unlike the Sunday TV preachers, it was her philosophy disguised as a story that brought devotees to her and through her to Branden. I came to know him though a psychologist friend of mine who was a friend of Branden's. He was a very bright guy, but the moon who reflected the light of the sun.

I judge people by how they act and not what they do. Since the majority of people have chosen to live under slavery I still maintain that they "say they don't want to be slaves while choosing slavery". This country is not a free country. Just because your are free to argue with and try to convince the left they are wrong if they succeed in promoting an illegal law that the courts uphold; i.e. the Affordable Care Act and you are forced to comply then you are not free to choose although you are free to complain. The freedom to complain while you are being hanged is not freedom.

I judge people by what they do and how they act, not what they say. That's how I know they don't prefer bondage. Being lazy they love, bondage, not so much. I also prefer not to make sweeping judgements by placing people in groups and talking about how they WILL act. My whole letter was about how the evidence tells you how you're failing and why. We ARE failing. We need to change tactics or continue losing. A lot of the marketing for the left is done through convincing the "many" just how dangerous we are (so they work doubly hard) while we laugh at them and downplay their successes. Whose the fool?

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. I also appreciate your questions.
1. I agree with you on #10 and I'll work on that part.
2. The other side NEVER has just one agenda working. There are many factions in the D party (just as there are in the R and L parties). They vie for power and control. This section wanted the strategy to go one way and took a stand on this issue (besides the city pushing it too far at last). There was a lot of mentoring from ???? but all the money mainly came from small donations under $500. Why? The only way you can get fluoride OUT of water is by reverse osmosis or "from the air" reclaimation...VERY costly and resource IN-efficient processes.
3. I don't use those labels (progressive, conservative, liberal etc). They don't mean anything and no one can define them...not even the owners of the label. This was a turf war, plain and simple. Powerful unions against REAL activists who actually believe in what they are promoting. This was way pre-Bernie/Hitlery ittis.
4. The reasons now are hard to remember as I didn't keep much of the literature. This link is from the NO side and references the YES side so you can see how things are "worded" https://fluoridealert.org/news/fluori....

What libertarians need to learn is that end goals are different from action plans and strategy is not done with alcohol and a shotgun but with triage and a scalpel.

It's unfortunate but the fact that the network broke up when the relationship did shows it was not built on much more than "personality". Ironic he called it The Collective. I have my own opinion of both of those folks but I keep it to myself as it's not very popular.

Your comments like many others I've seen has missed the point of my letter. This isn't a contest between gradualists and principle approach people. This is a contest between those who use rules of marketing to promote their product (the left and collectivism) and those who don't (us and liberty).

Intent is what determines whether it's compromise or incrementalism. Libertarians continue letting "the perfect" be the enemy of "the good". With that purview, then only perfection can be considered the one true legitimate way. However, no step can be perfect unless the person is also perfect...which is probably never going to happen so no progress can be made.. Our problem is not making the right decision. Our problem is getting up out of a chair and taking the first step toward DOING anything. We are losing ground because we refuse to do the repetitive and boring job of "marketing what we value" to anyone but those who have already purchased.

There was a time in the past when their collectivist crap was a really hard sell. What happened?

Re: "Fluoridation is meant to prevent a disease, i.e., the prevention of bacteria causing caries in teeth."

So it's okay for government to interfere in people's free choices if the purpose is to "prevent disease"? This logic can also be used to justify taxing the hell out of sugary soft drinks, or even banning them altogether. That's more of an argument in favor of a nanny state than an argument for individual rights.

Medication treats a disease. Fluoridation is meant to prevent a disease, i.e., the prevention of bacteria causing caries in teeth. Do you live in the country and have your own well or purchase bottled water? If so, do you have the water analyzed for safety when drunk. Societies have opted for municipal water systems for convenience and safety where governments can be trusted. Short of having multiple water lines in privately owned streets in cities and all the time spent earning to pay for them, carrying water would be a daily project as in less developed countries. My village does not fluoridate water and charges an $320 yearly fee before charging for the water and sewer usage in order to earn an 8% profit for repairs and toward replacing broken equipment. I liked it better than when water was cheap with the hidden costs being paid out of property taxes. The mandatory part of it is having to be hooked to the village system. One woman tried to not hook up because she did not need water and sewer for visiting her cottage a week or two a year. The village tried fining her $10,000 which she refused to pay so they jailed her for two weeks, which didn't get her to pay up, so they condemned her cottage and ripped it down. That is what should be fought rather than somewhat non-issues. Good luck in getting people to hold some rational beliefs. I have found that people prefer just believing what they believe without taking the time and effort to learn new ideas that includes my 3 living brothers by whom I get yelled at with any reference to Rand or most other ideas.

I don't think libertarians of the left or the right favor a nanny-state government "medicating" the population through its drinking water. It's an issue of freedom of choice. Ideally water delivery should be a private activity, not a government one.

If asked directly they will always say they do not prefer bondage, if you package the bondage attractively they will choose it almost every time. Their preference for not striving makes them easy targets for Hitler, Stalin, Obama, Trump . . . list any name here.

Which set of libertarian principles are you speaking of? Libertarianism is spread over the left to the right. The US libertarian party has watered down the platform compared to what it was decades ago and run candidates which I do not consider to be libertarians of the kind with rational philosophies.

I was considering how you seem to believe that you need to create some kind of collective to change the minds of those without libertarian beliefs. I have seen this kind of stuff from libertarians for decades. If you like some form of Objectivism try to introduce others to it. It is libertarian and more directed toward a rational individual than is libertarian which has no necessary rational philosophical base. Libertarians come with a spectrum of philosophies from left to right along with those with an Objectivist philosophical base which really does not fit on the lift-right scale.
As a chemist, I understand the pros and cons of fluoridation of water and the only problem I have with it is that it is semi-mandatory in that one can purchase drinking water and use fluoride substance on their teeth if they decide to do so. Why do you use government supplied water and not complain about chlorination to kill bad living things or the use of other chemicals in purification processes. If you came to libertarianism through Rand, then don't expect to go for the Rothbardian type of anarcho capitalism.
https://mises.org/library/why-i-am-an...

I prefer the Randian type of limited government and do not see any way without waring groups trying to force society into private enforcement organizations for some kind of non-legal policing pretending not to be a government.

People see in others what they want to see. I have never seen a person who preferred bondage to liberty. What they prefer is not striving to striving and if people didn't stand up at Dachau when it was 4,000 to one, they aren't going to stand up now or in the future. It takes will, and that is what we are short on.

Actually, what you've written indicates you didn't spend much time on what I wrote. The fact you only got "collectivism" out of it is sort of the proof. Your reasoning on fluoride indicates you have never looked at the evidence except from your own side so there's little point talking about that subject. This kind of answer is why there is so little activity on this forum. Don't have a clue why you even responded because you added nothing of substance to the discussion and addressed nothing I said in the letter.

"That anti-fluoridation direction" is exactly on point in regard to libertarian principles. It's a matter of individual choice. Regardless of fluoridation's merits (or lack thereof), does the government have the right to "medicate" the general population? I think not.

Gary Johnson is a horrible example of a Libertarian. He is wishy washy, and has no value system. At least that is my take on him after researching him and watching him. Yuck!

Perhaps you should read "The Will To Bondage" by Estienne de la Boeite. Written nearly 500 years ago he had the astute observation that most people prefer bondage and will revert to it or even demand a stronger tyrant if they feel threatened by liberty. Estienne was looking back 1500 years to the Roman attempt at a Republic form of government and its failure. His ultimate conclusion was that in order to live free man may have to live unobserved (by the tyrants and the slavish majority of people) and that tyranny would probably be the norm for the human race until it dies out.

You seem to think that somehow by using collectivism you can get non-collectivism, i.e., individuals with a rationally selfish view of reality who do not need a collective to give them some self worth. I doubt that any religious or philosophical ideologies can be changed by your labors since change requires mental self effort. They are changed accidentally by the memes passing through societies and Libertarianism and Objectivism are small sources of non-collectivist memes compared to religious and other destructive beliefs.
Be careful, the Neo-techs may infiltrate your blog as there may be some lurking here in the Gulch, though not directly advertising their odd takes on Objectivism and Libertarianism.
That anti-fluoridation direction is non-sense due to the lack of harm due to natural fluorides at much higher concentrations than any added to a municipal water supply. Whether one wants more tooth decay in children's teeth of the poor is another matter to consider with un-fluoridated water with the government accusing a parent of child neglect if the schools find any cavities in teeth.

I read the entire article. Liked it. Here are a few random comments and questions:

1. On item # 10, I got lost in the pronouns. Not always sure which group “they” and “them” refers to.

2. The anti-fluoride campaign relied heavily on volunteers, but a clearly professional operation of that size must have had significant funding. Who funded it, and why?

3. You said the anti-fluoride campaign split the Democratic Party. Were the people you worked with “progressives” of the Bernie Sanders persuasion? Were the fault lines similar to those playing out within the Democratic Party on the national stage?

4. You said “choice” was last on their list “Reasons to Vote NO on putting fluoride in drinking water”. What were the reasons that ranked higher? Perhaps libertarians could also use these reasons when engaging the voters on specific issues.

I sympathize.
Way back in the 50's, I can tell you how Nathaniel Branden did it up until his break-up with Rand. It started with Branden touring Rand groups all over the place. FREE. Where he couldn't show, he sent a tape. Today he could send a video. This was the 50's after all. Then he sent out taped lectures that were played to an audience that cost them $10. The local sponsor paid for refreshments and the room. AV today would knock the presentation out of the park.Those at the lecture(s) would be asked to join the group (Ayn Rand refused to allow her name to be used). The Branden network became quite formidable within a year.Then came the silly explosive break-up and it all crumbled away. But that's the way Old Nathan did it and if I must say, quite successfully and patting myself on the back for participating.Most of all those guys and gals (The Collective) are gone now, Except for the former head of the Fed. He must be as old as a Redwood Tree.

Both gradualist and strict-principle approaches have their place. Each will produce gains the other won't, but the gains from a strict-principle approach are harder to measure because they happen in people's minds.

I used to believe the LP was the best organization to demonstrate strict principle. When I figured out otherwise, I left the LP. (The LP's problem is that it won't even try to purge itself of kooks.)

These days most of the good strict-principle material I see is on blogs, or from groups like the Mises Institute. As for gradualist groups, I like the Club for Growth, the Institute for Justice, and Pacific Legal Foundation (the latter two being lawsuit mills rather than campaigns for office).

But all of these are so frustratingly slow to get results that I would still be very tempted by new-country projects.

The problem is: where does incrementalism end and compromise begin? And how do you convince fellow libertarians that the answer still makes libertarian striving a practical matter?

That's a wonderful aim but I don't see how it can be fulfilled if we keep maintaining a big tent of unprincipled people who really do not live by the principles of libertarianism, they only subscribe to the one thing. When it comes to choice in the big picture of life, they don't trust people with it.

"I want a VERY small tent. I only want people who live by PRINCIPLES I find value in. I have three 1. I tell the truth 2. I am honorable in my dealings with others. 3. I respect property interests."
I like to think this is or could be a big tent, ideally the vast majority of society.