In a word, "enormous", but this doesn't seem to be of interest here. There is a good deal of hostility to the purpose of this forum here, as indicated by how quickly your question was mindlessly 'downvoted' by a couple of the militants. More serious is the lack of positive interest.

I haven't made any contributions nor do I plan on it. Oops.

Welcome to The Gulch SonofAyn!

Being Objective and looking to the fundamental base of Value was Rand's iteration in The Objectivist's Ethics. She left a couple gaps.

One's mortality is the source of value for any life form. Life is self-evident and holds 6 to 8 expressions of definition regardless the life form. The purpose of Life is continuity. And from the definition of Life...It must obtain and process some type of fuel and propagate to continue. All individual life forms begin and end.

Humans are a bit different. We can create non-reality and try to live by our subjective creation. Abstraction. Humans created tools that eased our trials of survival. We created specialties among us to further our ease. All of this is self-evident. As ease of survival increased the exposure of each individual to every aspect of the survival mechanisms decreased. Assumptions become self-evident.

Humans cannot survive without nurture. Thus, our indoctrination into what we deem community. As a human matures to the point of self-sufficient survival there are choices to be made. The choice of Freedom as an absolute or Liberty, a conditional behavior of community. Psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors are those of Freedom as an absolute. Liberties are of conscious involvement in community.

As to your posting on religion and being objective. The two are incompatible. Religions are abstractions of fear, power and control created and maintained by ignorance and psychopathy.

Deem this contributory or not....a full authorship is under development. Proposed release approximately a year from now.

Thanks for the great questions as your introductory!

I rather thought the point was to live for yourself and not "contribute to Objectivism" or offer values to others.

Isn't this an attempt to treat Objectivism as a 'collective" that controls what is appropriate to think and say?

Why should I?

My underground medicine novel and my anti-brainwashing video have already been explicitly mentioned. Also see http://brightwriter.com for others, including human-relations material with little direct relevance but potentially helpful nevertheless.

No rhetorical question can be devoid of emotional content. (Proof: the statement that it implies would otherwise be made as a statement, and asking a question is an aggressive act that constrains the person asked to a narrow range of responses if rudeness is to be avoided.) The obvious implication is that we who read the question are being whipped to coerce us into doing more. The whole point of this group is to repudiate being enslaved by society or by any component of it, thereby making the comment itself destructive and ludicrous.