See, that's actually one of the fundamental problems of Objectivism that I was talking about. The whole "non-contradiction" thing certainly seems simple and straightforward enough on the surface, but once you start getting into deeper, more advanced philosophical theories, it starts to unravel. This is especially true when dealing with advanced mathematical theory, on which a significant amount of philosophy is based. For example, Harvard mathematician Barry Mazur wrote a 24 page paper dealing with the nature of identity and equality titled "When is one thing equal to some other thing?" And Terence Parsons, professor of philosophy and linguistics at UCLA, wrote an entire textbook on the issue, titled "Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics." Then there's also the critically acclaimed and bestselling book "The God Problem," by Howard Bloom, which actually references Ayn Rand directly, and explores the history and origins of the equation A = A. You can skip Terence Parsons' textbook, but at the very least you should read Barry Mazur's brief paper and Howard Bloom's book, "The God Problem." It'll make you rethink your position about A = A.

Here are the links:

"When is one thing equal to some other thing?" by Barry Mazur:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/prepr...

"Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics," by Terence Parsons:
http://www.amazon.com/Indeterminate-Iden...

"The God Problem," by Howard Bloom:
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Problem-Go...

Now don't get me wrong, I believe Ayn Rand provides a great deal of much needed and invaluable insight into the diametrically opposed theories of capitalism and socialism, but anytime she gets off the topic of economics, her arguments tend to be less than convincing, and I frankly don't see how adhering to a particular mathematical philosophy has anything to do with promoting capitalism.

By the way, using Objectivist theory to try and prove the truth of Objectivist theory is circular reasoning. That's like asking an insurance salesman whether or not you need insurance (you won't get an unbiased answer).

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get around to reading Leonard Peikoff's book eventually, as you suggested, though I'm currently reading other books about Ayn Rand, so it probably won't be until I'm finished with those. But thanks for the recommendation. ;)

Posting links on a forum isn't really what I would consider "hard work." >_>

Well, if it's a choice between progressive and conflicted, I'll take conflicted. ^_^

I think you're making assumptions and generalizing just a bit. ;)

NOM: National Organization for Marriage, an anti-LGBT organization whose primary purpose is to oppose marriage equality for the LGBT community and who was one of the primary organizations behind Proposition 8 in California, though recently they've also begun participating in other anti-LGBT legislation that has nothing to do with marriage.

I generally try to avoid labels, since once you've labeled yourself as something, you then have to carry all the political baggage of that label.

Though at the same time, it's probably not possible to avoid labels entirely, since a label is ultimately a convenient way to categorize people with similar opinions, and forming opinions is something everyone does in their journey through life.

Personally, I've actually thought a lot about how I would describe myself and my views, and I've decided that the best label to describe my philosophical viewpoint would probably be Utilitarianism (that is, I believe you can know whether something is good or not by whether or not it works), whereas politically I generally refer to myself as a Left-Leaning Libertarian. I could also be described as ardently anti-Communist and highly suspicious of Socialism, yet at the same time I do believe that social justice issues are incredibly important, and I consider myself an advocate for civil rights. I could probably be described as a feminist in some ways, though there are many feminists (mostly second wave radicals from the 70s) who say things I don't agree with at all.

Most of my views on economics and business come primarily from the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" series of books by Robert Kiyosaki, as well as "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Dale Carnegie, and also a few books written by Donald Trump. I love Ayn Rand's fiction, and I believe her novels reveal many important flaws in communist/socialist ideology, though her non-fiction work generally feels half-baked, and I believe that although her philosophy makes many poignant and accurate observations, there are just as many deep, fundamental flaws and oversights underlying its reasoning.

During the 2012 election, the presidential candidates who I found most appealing and who I agreed with the most were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Does that answer your question?