RationalEgoist

I'll chime in with my two cents.
Rand was an explicit proponent of retributive justice. In one of the Q&A periods during the 1976 course that Leonard Peikoff gave on Objectivism, she strongly answered in the affirmative when asked if Objectivism believes in retributive justice, and here I mean that the term "retributive justice" was literally used in the formulation of the question so as to leave no doubt whatsoever about her views on it. 
In a different Q&A session, she stated that very little (if anything) is known about the rehabilitation of criminals, and that the rest of society doesn't owe the criminal a rehabilitation. One can draw the conclusion that these are two reasons as to why she wasn't in favor of rehabilitative justice. Whether or not you accept those arguments as being valid 40+ years later is up to you. But, on a more fundamental level, I believe that a belief in retributive justice logically follows if you hold that man possesses free will. You chose to violate the rights of another individual, and therefore deserve a proportional punishment that fits your crime. You're not a deterministic being who simply "couldn't help it". The criminal being separated from the civilized men and women makes them safer as a consequence. The notion of justifying retributive justice on the basis of making society safer is something that Rand herself expressed, so it's not as if I'm just inadvertently smuggling it in here. But, above all (as has already been stated), it's primarily a question of giving the criminal what they deserve. You deal in force, we answer you by force. 
If it's of any interest to you, Peikoff stated during his 1995 lecture titled "What to Do About Crime" that it would be beneficial if criminals learn to adopt positive behaviors during they stay in prison, so that they can become productive citizens when they have been released. I also believe he's in favor of prisoners being allowed to work in exchange for a small earning, but don't hold me to that. You can interpret that as a more favorable view towards rehabilitative justice if you'd like. 
 

The US is not bombing Ukraine. Russia is. Basically, I think the mistake you make is downplaying the fact that there are strong currents within the Ukrainian population who have a will of their own, and that will is moving towards some kind of integration with the West. It isn't a conspiracy operating in the shadows. 
This is beside the point since Objectivism does not automatically recognize the sovereignty of a nation. Actual standards are involved when evaluating a nation's right to self-determination.
As I and @Eiuol have consistently argued in this thread, a dictatorship (like Russia) can claim no rights for itself as a legitimate entity so long as it actively violates the rights of its citizenry. 

The ICC just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin. 

20 years ago, I came back from my internship at the Ayn Rand Institute's OCON conference excited to meet other Objectivists. 
This was a year before Facebook when IRC Chat was still the most popular venue for Objectivists to chat. So I decided to start my own Objectivism Forum - Objectivism (then )
Here is the post announcing the new site:  
 
 
After I graduated college in 2004, I handed off management to a series of admins and moderators, continuing to this day.  I've continued to host the forum over that time, accumulating the following totals:
10,160 members 31,374 discussions 337,656 posts The site was most popular for the first few years, hosting events such as a live chat with Onkar Ghate, all sorts of features like The Objectivist Metablog, hosting for Ayn Rand clubs, event calendars, hosted email accounts, photo galleries, and much more.  At live events, we would have hundreds of people participating and hundreds of posts per day.  After Facebook became popular in 2009, traffic dropped off a lot, but as you can see, the site is still active today.  

Happy Moment (in the early 1950's, I think)

1924 -- while a museum tour guide in Leningrad.

The user's handle is RageAgainstWar? How amusing. I wonder if they have condemned the actions of the aggressor in this conflict, namely the Russian government. 
Yet another person led astray by the nihilist narrative that pervades every political corner (leftists, libertarians, nationalist conservatives, etc.) today. 
May the Ukrainians be victorious soon. 

I mean, yeah, autocracy is always inferior to democracy/constitutional republics. This isn't controversial.
We already went over objective criteria. The criteria that Rand provided. 
To some extent, yes, it would be better for everyone if the Russian government adopted generally Western standards of democracy. This is a good thing. 
 
 

I said appeal to, as in, request help or make others aware. 
Which is fine, but "saving the Ukrainians" isn't "doing what's best for Russia". 
Well yeah, authoritarian and autocratic regimes are not respected. This is a good thing.
We already went over how it doesn't matter how many people consent, autocratic and authoritarian regimes are still not legitimate. 

Found it! 
https://peikoff.com/tag/values/page/8/#list 

I mean, I think I'm in general agreement with the gist of what you've written here. Money, as such, is not a proper standard by which you can gage the quality of a man (this is especially true in unfree societies). I don't think a man's wealth is necessarily irrelevant, but context matters.
Ability exists on a spectrum. Not everyone will want to look for a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart, nor is that necessary for a happy relationship. The virtue of a potential partner is what's most important, as well as how you gel together in terms of temperament. 
That being said, however, I do think there's something to the idea that femininity involves looking up to man. Thing is, your average Joe can be just as moral as an intellectual giant since ability and status are non-essentials when evaluating the moral character of a person. Eddie Willers and John Galt were moral equals, but unequal in ability. 

Very good question!
Rand identified the essence of friendship as a response to values. I agree with her, although I think something like temperament is also important in regards to who I would find pleasing. Being an introvert, I would not find qualities such as aggressiveness, intensity, or boldness appealing. I'd prefer someone mild-mannered, quiet, shy, cautious, modest, and reflective. In regards to virtues, I need not repeat the list from Galt's speech. 
I would not say that I respond to the same character traits regardless of the sex. In other words, there are traits I would find appealing in a girl which would be unappealing (or unimportant) in a guy. (As a side-note, just like Rand I don't really believe in the idea of having friends of the opposite sex, but to each their own). 
Something that I've sort of learned over time is not to place people in boxes. Each individual is their own and everyone possesses their uniquely stylized character making them truly distinct. Sometimes you just know that someone is a good fit for you, and I find that overanalyzing their character can ruin the organic spark that made them appealing to you in the first place. 

https://courses.aynrand.org/works/patents-and-copyrights/
Would you care to walk us through the article and point out where you imagine she digresses from the process of reason, step by step?

In episode #18 of HBTV, Binswanger quotes Rand as having said "I am in favor of colonialism". This does not come as a shock to me, considering the public arguments that she put forth as to why it was morally just for the colonists to settle in America or for Jewish populations to settle in Palestine. If you're not familiar with her argumentation, she essentially argued that the British colonists and the Jewish settlers represented a beachhead of civilization and progress in places where backwardness and stagnation ran rampant. In the episode, Binswanger himself mentions India under British rule and argues that they benefitted a great deal in terms of Western technology while also conceding that moral wrongs were undoubtedly committed. 
Rand's statements on colonialism would be decried as reprehensible in today's ugly culture of nihilism where America (and the West as a whole) is supposed to get down on their knees and apologize to everyone on the globe for any perceived injustice. The reason why I wanted to make this thread is because I've found that Objectivists themselves tend to get squeamish on the subject. It's as if it is this elephant in the room which admirers of Rand's philosophy all need to dance around so as to not cast any light on it because it's perceived as an embarrassment. I do wonder if young Objectivists are more prone to feeling uneasy or dismissive in regards to Rand's views on colonialism than those who've been around for decades. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't doubt that's the case. 
What do you think? Let's discuss it. 
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRXW58FZ_g&t=1483s 24:09 
 

It is true that all of the copyrights for Sherlock Holmes have expired, therefore those works are 'in the public domain'. It is not the case that the estate cannot garner further revenue – that depends on the terms of the license granted to a publisher. If e.g. Random House obtained a license to publish some work of Doyle’s in exchange for some per-copy royalty, that obligation still exists unless there is an explicit clause terminating the obligation to pay. You’d really have to read the agreement to see what it says. I read my agreements, and there is no clause to the effect that “We don’t have to pay for sales once copyright expires”.
“Entering the public domain” is, pretty much defined as “copyright has expired”. People may declare that a work is “in the public domain”, but US copyright law does not define the concept “public domain”, and it’s just a common way of talking about expired copyright.

Russia is, more importantly, going out of its way to trash Ukrainians and their dwellings.

Why is Russia going out of its way to trash Ukrainian culture?  Or do you deny this is happening?
 

I wanted to know what you thought.
His point is something about the spirit of the country, in the abstract. And I take it to mean approval of the government from administration to administration. I don't care about the Biden administration in particular, nor the Trump administration, but since I still generally support the American government, I care about American interests and want those to be is best off as possible. The same government that Grames refers to as the American Empire, whose interests he wants worse off as possible. 
But we certainly can't reify a "true America". All you can do is talk about the America that exists concretely, and its general form of government, and realize that another America would be entirely different. I would like such a thing. Even still, I would prefer the so-called American Empire, especially because I don't think supporting Russia would grant me anywhere near closer to the kind of America I would like. Further away in fact. Even if you want to claim that Russia is not a dictatorship, it isn't moving towards democracy or any notion of a more free government. Worst case scenario, the US is moving towards autocracy, but Russia is already there and shows no signs of improvement.

I'm unsure if you're familiar with Rand's position on intellectual property rights but disagree with it or if you're not aware that she actually did have a stance on the issue. She was strongly in favor of both patent and copyright law as a means of protecting "the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea". (Rand 1964, Patents & Copyrights) 
Objectivists have argued that it does not, in fact, make any sense to draw a dividing line between intellectual property and other forms of property since it was ultimately man's mind which brought it all about. When I want the government to protect my factory, it is the preservation of my mind to act freely that I seek since this will enable my survival as a rational being. 
Now, in regards to the scenario you provided, it is highly problematic because you've seemingly plucked it out of thin air. To begin with, if a spear is being used for the purposes of defense or hunting then this would imply a primitive society, in which case the subject of individual rights is moot anyway. But, secondly, you simply can't own the idea of a spear (although you can own the specific type of spear which your company manufactures), so in a free society the government could not confiscate it from you, nor could a company claim sole monopoly on its production in a court of law. 
Intellectual discoveries, however, cannot be reasonably patented. To quote Rand once again: 
"It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it – but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge." 

It's a spiral.   I'm not being facetious here, "the spiral of knowledge" is a thing in Objectivist epistemology.  It refers to the ever widening context of knowledge that prompts revisiting the already known and obvious for new integrations.  "Rights" are not obvious.  The context in which people are using spears for survival is not a context that will provide any need to discover patent rights.

I can see it now.
Welcome to California, the Gulag of the US!

Kate,
Would you say that plagiarism is dishonest and should not be done even if it is not against the law?
When you say "preventing man from doing as he wishes with his property," isn't that begging the question at issue by your use of the term property, rather than possession?

You can own the idea of spear, if you were the truly the first to conceive of it, but only temporarily.   Property rights in real estate and other material things do not have time limits.  As Rand explained above discoveries cannot be property at all.  Between those two ends of the spectrum there is the invention, which is created by the inventor and so is eligible to be property but there is also the problem of demanding that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. (where by falsehood there are the inefficient old ways the new invention renders obsolete).   No man should be able to demand such a thing forever.  An inventor deserves some recognition and property interest in an invention, but a time-unlimited property right would be unjust.  Patent rights are time-limited to attempt to balance the rights of all concerned.  Whether the duration of patent rights should 17 or 20 years is optional, much like making age 18 be the legal threshold of adulthood instead of 16, 17 or 21.   
Patents, being themselves property, can be sold and usually are.  So the Tesla example violates the right of the patent holder but just for the aspects of the car that are patented.  The idea of a car and of electricity and even an electric car are long known and no longer patented or patentable, only specific enabling new features and technologies.

Victims of dictatorships may defend themselves as they see fit, but not to wield the power of the dictatorship to do so. 
I would've expected you to argue that I'm flat out wrong that Russia is a dictatorship, I find it bizarre and disheartening that instead your argument went to justifying a moral right for dictatorships to defend themselves. I wonder though if you read Grames' post and agree with him?
Please, try to recognize when going over all the facts again is a waste of time. It starts to come across as if you don't understand philosophical principles either, and are deliberately avoiding talking about them. It would be better if you try to make it into something productive. The real issue is a moral issue, because that colors the way that facts should be interpreted. 

Is this just another way of formulating the idea that most Ukrainians actually prefer caving to Putin's demands by giving up the Donbas and that it is only us outsiders who seek a decisive victory for Ukraine? Also, your usage of the term "fanatical" is interesting. Do you not think that foreign policy should be subordinated to moral law? A fanatical (read: principled) idea, indeed...
Look, whether you like it or not, the fact is that this war would never have had to happen in the first place if the Russian government had simply left Ukraine to its own devices back in 2014. To do this, the Russian state-machinery needs to drop the imperial big-brother complex, and face the fact that it has no right to demand that Ukraine exist as a puppet-state or that it remain geo-politically neutral. So long as it refuses to do this, any free country should recognize Russia for the threat she is, and act accordingly. 
Your whole Putinist/Eurasianist framing of the conflict as ultimately revolving around a fundamental threat to Russia is frankly not consistent with the facts of reality. It is Russia who is busy flattening Ukrainian cities and villages, not the other way around. Now, sure, if you think that Ukrainians should submit to their Russian overlords for all eternity, then I can see why allowing for Ukraine to develop independently can be interpreted as a threat to Russia. 
Yeah? What does the UN say about summary executions of civilians or bombing civilian infrastructure?