since you refuse to read the logical system underpinning and proving the philosophy, there is nothing more to say. but your choice to not read more yet stay on this site? that speaks volumes.

do you understand what a theory is? A theory is a conceptual framework integrating and explaining and predicting millions of facts.
Objectivism is a philosophy based in reality.
see? lots of work to do...

plenty about Objectivism. You either mis-state on purpose or through ignorance many important Objectivist concepts. it's annoying. read some books before you go around doing that.

how about someone else or another person?

Thanks here also. I will never run out of them. I am learning, which is a thrill.

Didn't you notice that the use of the phrase "any other human being's ... " and later of "another" causes confusion?

Hello E,

Thank you very much. I think that I knew all of what you said here, but in perhaps somewhat vague manner. Nothing beats complete clarity. In fact, I think, it increases the depth of understanding.

I also think that some of their confusion stems from inadequate understanding of metaphysical concepts.

Thanks, again.

And in the book John Galt did not agree with Ragnar either, and did not "help" him in his piracy, but in the true nature of the individual did not prevent him either thus supporting the "Rational Self-Interest"

but the point is tyranny. Robin of whereever (this is in dispute) came home from the Crusades to find his land confiscated and controlled by the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was responsible for many people. Since he was displaced, he gathered a small army together to defend the rightful King and recover the property stolen from the assets seized from his property and his villagers (employees). While one should work within a reasonable system to change how things are done-one should not have to stand aside and do nothing while they are being made slaves. We have sent two clear voting messages to the Congress and the leaders continue to ignore our votes. At what point do you say you are no longer represented? and would that be a tyranny?

but that is exactly Ragnar's point. Where is the tipping point to "stealing" from a tyrannist like Prince John?

Stealing is stealing PERIOD!!!
If you are not going to live by the laws then we have a lawless society whereby everything is permissible, and viola we have total anarchy.

If "The People" want to change their government and the taxation they bear, then they should do it. Oh wait, the Colonies did that hence the USA. Hrmmm...There is a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to solve the issue but stealing regardless of the motive is still wrong.

Yes, morality, as well as a view of the world and the nature of man, are both aspects of a philosophy (or primitive philosophy) seeking general understanding. A view of the nature of reality and of man will determine a moral code of how he should act, but is much more than that.

In primitive times it was not a matter of first developing a theology of the universe and then going back to start over with ethics, or of formulating ethics before ever thinking about the nature of the universe. People had to make choices from the beginning. All major aspects of a philosophical world-view evolve together, beginning with a sense of life with a lot left implicit.

A primitive, mystical view of the universe has a profoundly negative effect on a subsequent moral code. Rational, civilized people do not define the good in terms of submissively obeying commandments from a god and living for another world.

Even morality, as part of a general outlook, is more than "how people should relate to one another". It concerns the choices we must make which make a difference in our lives, beginning with the choice to think or not. There are no moral principles for dealing with other people without first formulating an understanding of the nature of man and what is moral for him as an individual. The insidious influence of altruism has led people to view morality as only concerned with relations with others, and then only as sacrifice as the meaning of the good.

I know....but why not tell the real story and that the story was retarded in an attempt to vilify the rich because certain someones thought that made for a more sympathetic story line. Liars.

Whatever Robin Hood did or was described as doing by the original legend, true or not, he is generally regarded as stealing from the rich to give to the poor. That is generally what is meant in discussions of Robin Hood today. Many people don't make the distinction between the wealthy and the King's tax collector.

You can believe whatever you want to, but your smears and misrepresentations do not belong here. You did _not_ identify an example of "someone who considers Objectivism to be a religion". No one has advocated a "catechism" or "litany", nor was there "florid description". You don't have to "accept" anything. Whether you like it or understand it or not, Ayn Rand's philosophy is an integrated system of principles in a logical hierarchy, not a Chinese menu approach to philosophy for eclectics. So is physics. That does not make either a "religion", nor does it dictate to you what to do with your own life. No one told you that you cannot "pick or choose" anything from anywhere. Your statement is false, but the eclecticism is all yours. It doesn't change what Ayn Rand's philosophy in fact is, with or without your approval or hysterical smears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-R1o75...