Or maybe I just actually read his books.

"Dignity" is not, has never been, and never will be a synonym for "rights".

It seems to me like they're two different ways of saying the same thing.

You keep talking about Saul Alinsky's philosophy, but I have to ask, have you ever read his books?

You seem to be rather fixated on the concept of rights. I don't think Saul Alinsky was even talking about rights at all. He was simply saying that when you're working with other people, you have to respect their individual dignity, otherwise they're not going to cooperate with you. Not everything is about rights.

Right, and when you go about as an individual improving your own personal living conditions, will you be cooperating with any other individuals, or will you be doing everything alone, by yourself, without any help from anybody?

Well, he did say "the dignity of the individual," which does definitely seem to suggest that it would be applied to individuals. And I don't think he was necessarily presenting it as a right, but more like a piece of advice if you want to succeed in your endeavors. If a community organizer does violate the dignity of individuals, his "punishment" will be that the community organization will not succeed. This is also good advice for businessmen. When you're trying to close a deal, you have to respect the dignity the other party, otherwise they're not going to get on board with you.

Okay, so you're not operating under the premise that regulations are inherently antithetical to a free market. Good to know. :)

"Through all this the constant guiding star of the organizer is in those words, "The dignity of the individual." Working with this compass, he soon discovers many axioms of effective organization.

If you respect the dignity of the individual you are working with, then his desires, not yours; his values, not yours; his ways of working and fighting, not yours; his choice of leadership, not yours; his programs, not yours, are important and must be followed; except if his programs violate the high values of a free and open society. For example, take the question, "What if the program of the local people offends the rights of other groups, for reasons of color, religion, economic status, or politics? Should this program be accepted just because it is their program?" The answer is categorically no. Always remember that "the guiding star is 'the dignity of the individual.'" This is the purpose of the program. Obviously any program that opposes people because of race, religion, creed, or economic status, is the antithesis of the fundamental dignity of the individual.

It is difficult for people to believe that you really respect their dignity. After all, they know very few people, including their own neighbors, who do. But it is equally difficult for you to surrender that little image of God created in our own likeness, which lurks in all of us and tells us that we secretly believe that we know what's best for the people. A successful organizer has learned emotionally as well as intellectually to respect the dignity of the people with whom he is working. Thus an effective organizational experience is as much an educational process for the organizer as it is for the people with whom he is working. They both must learn to respect the dignity of the individual, and they both must learn that in the last analysis this is the basic purpose of organization, for participation is the heartbeat of the democratic way of life. We learn, when we respect the dignity of the people, that they cannot be denied the elementary right to participate fully in the solutions to their own problems. Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking—taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work."

~ Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," In The Begining, pages 122-123

And tell me, how can you mitigate cronyism without imposing legislation? Isn't one of the core tenants of Objectivism that all regulation is automatically bad no matter what?

Fun fact: free market capitalism has been used to justify that exact scenario. If you don't let the dam be built, you're interfering in the free market! Or so the large corporations claim.

There's a documentary called "The End of Poverty?" which you can watch for free on YouTube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1...

Skip ahead to 1:12:00 for the part where they talk about the dam being built and destroying the farmland of the local population.

I did read that post. Unfortunately, your comment is rather vague and cryptic, and a clear and concise meaning is difficult to derive from it. Perhaps you could expound on your thoughts a bit more?