Recently I engaged a bunch of so-called political consequent liberals in a discussion about objectivism, as that seems to be the dominant dogma of the party. But when I called it dogma all hell broke loose. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I just assumed that people were familiar with basic 20th century notions beside objectivism. Now the problem arose when I tried to explain that I agree with their first axiom (that we have consciousness) but not with the inference that "reality exists", as they put it, in an external material state outside consciousness. After that the whole discussion just slid into absurdity, because they would not get the question I was asking about whether consciousness is primary or not - they simply skipped over it or misunderstood no matter how many times I reformulated it. It seemed to have something to do with how they define "reality". My intention was to explore how people can arrive at libertarianism coming from radically different angles. Now I'm perplexed as to whether I should continue the debate or not. Are there any idealists in here who can explain to me how this Randism works through her disciples? And how to speak to them?