I'm sure that you're more convinced than ever of your position MrA, that's how human psychology works.I don't think I am at all, so that's that then. I still have yet to see any "perils" of Objectivism in this thread.
The first and largest peril is inequality. However, inequality is a marker, a causal nexus, rather than a perilous end. The negatives that inequality leads to cannot be listed here in a single post. But let's pick one of the many at random. Education.
I'm not sure what education would look like under Objectivism, so the effects of inequality on education may actually be worse than I propose. If education is privatized, then only the wealthy could afford an education that would lead to a job that provides enough to feed a family. Generation upon generation would be stuck in the ruts of poverty, with no way out except perhaps winning the lottery, or an unexpected inheritance from distance relatives. Due to how wealth is distributed in a Capitalist economy, this means that less than 1% of children would have an adequate education for a higher-skilled job.
If education is public, then we'd see what we're witnessing today, only worse. Cuts to funding, leading to an ever greater disparity in learning between those children educated by the public system, and those educated privately. The results are the same as if it were privatized.
There's a treasure trove of information on the subject of inequality, with many books written on the subject. It's the marker that can be found in the collapse of most societies in Earth's history that fell from the heights of power.
https://www.google.com/search?q=income+ ... e&ie=UTF-8
The second peril of Objectivism that could trump inequality is environmental degradation. With the throttle removed on our consumption of resources and pollution, we'd shift even further than we already are in the wrong direction. Species would go extinct at a faster pace, smog would return, the mountains of garbage in our ocean would grow even faster, climate change would worsen, and nowhere could you find a park or any wildlife that would be preserved and enjoyable.
The third peril, which isn't as bad as the first two, is the disparity between productivity and compensation. It's already terrible. Under Objectivism it would be much worse. But we've been beating that dead horse in this thread too much for it to get through to you by mentioning it again.
Objectivism wouldn't last long as a dominant ideology. Our society would collapse very quickly, or mother Earth would take her revenge before that happened. If you can't see the perils of Objectivism, you have only your own stubborn conviction to blame.