DonAthos

It does appear, at least from a cursory glance at accounts, that this is a somewhat correct sequence of events:
1. VA government wants to take down government statue of government employee in government park.
2. Nazis organize to protest, apply for necessary permits to do so.
3. Permits are rejected, Nazis, with help of ACLU take government to court and win.
4. Nazis march along preplanned route to park.
5. Counter protests organized with mostly angry normal people with a healthy contingent of Commies (BLM, Antifa, etc.)
6. Commies confront Nazis along their route, trying to physically block them, disrupt them, fight them ("punch a nazi"), pepper spray them, throw things, etc. and tried to block them from rallying around the statue, as they were legally permitted to do, and violence ensues.
Again, we must also mention the Nazi motorist that appears to have intentionally ran over a bunch of Commies.
Even if BLM and Antifa are at fault for the street fights, and the Nazis wanted a peaceful protest, they still do want to kill all the Jews and for the government to forcefully remove all non-whites.
In the words of Ludwig von Mises, "You're all a bunch of socialists."

The worst that could happen IMHO is that enough signals, pressure, or other political/military/diplomatic events occur that leads Un to believe he no longer will be able to hold onto power, i.e. that there is an unavoidable imminent threat to his rule/dynasty.  Putting him this far into a corner I think would be "suicidally" unacceptable to him...  Ever wonder what level of insanity drives people to committing "murder-suicide"?  It's the same kind of insanity a tyrant raised as a tyrant would be subject too if he thought he would lose everything he was rightfully entitled to and all that mattered to him...  at that point, and to that crazed mind, there is nothing to lose... might as well go out with a bang and take millions with him...
Perhaps having a psychotic with a loaded gun in your apartment building who habitually waves his gun around and calls threatens you as his enemy, is not actually something you could or should tolerate.  Perhaps the moral action is a surprise pre-emptive strike... if the risk of death to you is less than the risk you take everyday just looking over your shoulder hoping the psychotic will leave you alone.
 

I find Objectivism to be right -- and convincing and persuasive. Actually, it is hard for me to see any true divide between these things. But I also know that some people are bound to be reached in different ways: some through direct argumentation (often most peoples' psychological defenses are found here) and some through other means. An example of this is art, and Rand wrote her novels before she wrote her non-fiction. I think her novels generally reach more people than do her non-fiction arguments, though I can't say much more about that, or what the resultant difference might be.
That said, I would not hide any aspect of Objectivism from view, or prevaricate, because what does one "win" if one finds converts under false pretenses? If one seeks to spread Objectivism (and I think this is a value of great merit, generally), then surely it should be in a way consistent with the philosophy we mean to spread. We must proselytize with integrity and honesty.
With respect to some of the specific issues raised here, in actual conversations with non-Objectivists, I typically try to stress that my main objection to "forced charity" is not the "charity" part. Indeed, ARI runs on contributions and donates books to schools, gratis; there is no inherent conflict between charitable giving and Objectivism, and should people find it in their self-interest to contribute voluntarily to some pool for a program like Medicare, then they should consider themselves fully empowered to do so. Also, with forced contributions cut across the board, it is likely that many people would find themselves with greater resources with which they can pick and choose their causes -- how they would like to invest their time, money and energy -- whether the self, the family, or the community.
I do not expect, in any event, that a program like Medicare would disappear without forced contributions. I cannot predict such possible futures, and I do not know what they would look like to any great degree, but if people value such programs (and clearly they do), then if they were free to run and maintain and fund them, I would expect that they would continue to do so. Charity on the whole may even be stronger and more robust in an "Objectivist society"; or at least, I can report that as an Objectivist, I believe myself to be a more generous, giving human being than when I was a liberal. The difference in the main is that when I act now, it is not out of any sense of obligation or guilt, but because I am selfishly committed to making the world the way I want it to be.

I find Objectivism to be right -- and convincing and persuasive. Actually, it is hard for me to see any true divide between these things. But I also know that some people are bound to be reached in different ways: some through direct argumentation (often most peoples' psychological defenses are found here) and some through other means. An example of this is art, and Rand wrote her novels before she wrote her non-fiction. I think her novels generally reach more people than do her non-fiction arguments, though I can't say much more about that, or what the resultant difference might be.
That said, I would not hide any aspect of Objectivism from view, or prevaricate, because what does one "win" if one finds converts under false pretenses? If one seeks to spread Objectivism (and I think this is a value of great merit, generally), then surely it should be in a way consistent with the philosophy we mean to spread. We must proselytize with integrity and honesty.
With respect to some of the specific issues raised here, in actual conversations with non-Objectivists, I typically try to stress that my main objection to "forced charity" is not the "charity" part. Indeed, ARI runs on contributions and donates books to schools, gratis; there is no inherent conflict between charitable giving and Objectivism, and should people find it in their self-interest to contribute voluntarily to some pool for a program like Medicare, then they should consider themselves fully empowered to do so. Also, with forced contributions cut across the board, it is likely that many people would find themselves with greater resources with which they can pick and choose their causes -- how they would like to invest their time, money and energy -- whether the self, the family, or the community.
I do not expect, in any event, that a program like Medicare would disappear without forced contributions. I cannot predict such possible futures, and I do not know what they would look like to any great degree, but if people value such programs (and clearly they do), then if they were free to run and maintain and fund them, I would expect that they would continue to do so. Charity on the whole may even be stronger and more robust in an "Objectivist society"; or at least, I can report that as an Objectivist, I believe myself to be a more generous, giving human being than when I was a liberal. The difference in the main is that when I act now, it is not out of any sense of obligation or guilt, but because I am selfishly committed to making the world the way I want it to be.

Integrate everything you do into a seamless whole. David Allen's GTD methodology is a great way to do this. Amy Peikoff did an interview with Dave Allen, if you're interested you can listen to it here.
Always set specific work goals,  such as: 'I want to find out how to do X in less time and with better results'.
Not lying to yourself about where you are in relation to your goals. If applicable, don't be afraid to say 'I'm not where I want to be', or 'I have a long way to go'.
Don't pretend to like things that you don't. For example, if a friend wants to discuss a movie you dislike, simply tell him that it's not your kind of thing, and change the topic. 
Strive to achieve a real understanding of the principles that you practice regularly, even if they were learned from other people. You can't make full use of a piece of information unless you know exactly what it refers to and why it's true.
Form principles for your work, your romantic life, your thinking etc. and follow them. This virtue refers to all principles, not just moral ones. Check this post to learn how to form good principles.
Stick to rational principles, even when it's hard. Weakness of will is weakness of vision; if you don't feel like respecting a principle that you know is true, remind yourself of the consequences that will follow if you break it. "I'm not brave enough to be a coward" - Ayn Rand
Pride
Don't create unearned guilt by blaming yourself for unintentional mistakes. Learn from them & move on.
The Ben Franklin exercise that you mentioned.
Seek the best in anything. Make a list of values (work, love, art, food, health etc.) and go over it daily/weekly. As yourself, 'how can I improve the quality of this area?'. In art, it might mean creating a reading list or a watchlist. In love, picking out some special lingerie for your kindred soul. In health, choosing to use the stairs instead of the elevator.

There is an interesting quote from Peikoff, 1991:
Ayn Rand regarded her theory of concepts as proved, but not as completed. There are, she thought, important similarities between concepts and mathematics still to be identified; and there is much to be learned about man’s mind by a proper study of man’s brain and nervous system. In her last years, Miss Rand was interested in following up on these ideas—in relating the field of conceptualization to two others: higher mathematics and neurology. Her ultimate goal was to integrate in one theory the branch of philosophy that studies man’s cognitive faculty with the science that reveals its essential method and the science that studies its physical organs. 
This is pretty much the current program of today's field, Cognitive Science.  It's also important to realize that Rand developed her ideas at a time when linguistic analysis in philosophy and behaviorism in psychology were dominate.  But the science behind the operation of sense organs, childhood development, etc. played a large role in helping her to develop the ideas in ITOE.
Rand also says of Aesthetics:
The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist’s philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation . . . are defined by the science of esthetics—a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally.
A "science of aesthetics" would be every bit as comprehensive as the "science of epistemology " as developed in  the ITOE.  She considers epistemology to be a science (and she's not just using the term "science" metaphorically):
Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge. 
There would also be a significant overlap and interdependency between the sciences of epistemology and aesthetics - they are not mutually exclusive.
 

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm starting with the hunchback of Notre Dame. 

My senses do not "tell me" that the sun revolves around the earth, though they do provide the material by which I may come to that conclusion. If this conclusion is in error, then it will also be my senses which provide the material by which I can come to recognize and rectify it.

This is not usually the sort of discussion I try to get involved in -- for a variety of reasons. But in this case, I wonder what you mean that "propositions are only self evident in a derivative sense, for Rand," when it seems to me that Rand is stating directly that propositions are not self evident:
"Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception."
and "Nothing is self-evident except the evidence of your senses."
Perhaps there's some other quote which speaks to this directly that I'm missing? But otherwise, and bearing the above in mind, what is the "derivative sense" you're preserving for the self evidence of propositions?

Well now there is nothing to buy... here. 
Morality according to any philosophy has some standard (even if its irrational or subjective) which one uses within that philosophy to determine whether an action is moral or not.  If your question is about "the good", "right" and "wrong", "ethics", i.e. morality according to Objectivism, then you must remember that according to that philosophy, "life" (in a full robust flourishing sense) of the individual actor is the standard of morality.  The moral actor is the proper beneficiary of his adopted code.  
IF you reject that standard, that would be one thing, that would be asserting Objectivist ethics is simply wrong.
IF you are talking about what is "immoral" according to Objectivism, it is not possible for you not to "buy" that according to Objectivism self-DESCTRUCTIVE actions are "by definition" immoral.
Unless, that is, you have a different meaning for "self" and/or "destructive".
This is absolutely central to Objectivist ethics.
As you can gauge from the discussion so far determining just what IS self-destructive in the context of the particular person and situation can be complicated and nuanced.  Do not be tempted to make ethical judgment without a lot of thought, over simplification leads to error.  e.g. it is morally good to take water into your system when you are thirsty, it would be morally wrong for you to do so, if you are in the process of drowning in a lake reaching for a life preserver... "drinking water" as such is neither universally "good" nor universally "bad" 
I get a nice psychological reward, mental and spiritual (pertaining to the mind) fuel when I eat a donut one in a while, in my context it IS morally good to my flourishing, which is why I do it.  Eating 1000 donuts a week... in my context would surely be disastrous.

Why are you convinced that the approach I've described isn't used "in matters of morality"? Suppose, just for a moment, that the approach I've described is compatible with scenarios such as theft (and that deciding whether or not to eat a donut is equally a "matter of morality"). Where would that leave us?
Let's leave "rights" out of it at present, which leads us towards politics; let's stick with ethics for the moment. In terms of ethics, in terms of morality, why should an Objectivist say that a person ought not be a thief? Why say that a person ought not eat a donut, or a dozen in a sitting, or say contrarily that a person can morally eat a donut from time to time? Beyond the specific answer we reach, what's the purpose of asking and answering such questions at all? What's the point?
Though there is disagreement among Objectivists about certain matters with regards to the core of the Objectivist Ethics (and you can find copious discussion of the same on this board), broadly speaking the purpose of morality -- and the reason why we should have an ethical code at all -- is so that we can enjoy our lives. So that we can "flourish." Accordingly, when we describe something as being "immoral," it is something like a shorthand for saying that it works against an individual's efforts to flourish.
This is important to understand, especially for discussions like the one we're engaged in, and it's sometimes tricky to apply because it runs contrary to what I would say is the world's pervasive understanding of morality. I find that even many Objectivists often have an askew understanding on this point.
Sitting and devoting all of one's time to eating donuts is immoral, not because it arbitrarily runs afoul of certain dogma, not because Ayn Rand wouldn't agree, not because some remote or personal deity has pronounced it so, but because there is a reality to the situation: the person who acts in this fashion will not flourish. He will not enjoy his life, but rather will suffer and die.
Now perhaps you could posit a person who believes (even sincerely) that devoting all of his time to eating donuts will be for the best. And that's fine. I've no reason to tell such a person not to do so, except for all of the reasons why I would not act likewise: the host of potential health complications, opportunity costs, etc., etc., etc. But ultimately the individual has to assess these matters for himself, weighing evidence, reasoning and so on, and at the end of such a process, if a person truly believes that eating donuts is his path to a flourishing life (or if he rejects a flourishing life as a thing of value, though that's a separate but interesting discussion in its own right), well, then, there's nothing left to say to stop him.
Of course, he may be mistaken. He may dive deep into his donut obsession only to find his health failing, his loved ones abandoning him, his bank account depleted, his face covered in maple glaze, and he might regret any number of his choices. But this is always the risk inherent in pursing our ends.
Thievery, qua morality, is not different. It is immoral (to the extent that we can agree that it is), not because it violates some strictures or social norms, but because it is destructive to the individual who pursues it. What wealth the thief pursues through his actions is minor, and fleeting, compared to the wealth of fundamental harms he does to himself, in reality.
And you might disagree with that: you might believe that a thief can steal and get away with it, not just in terms of avoiding criminal justice, but in a much more profound sense. Yet that's the case Rand made. Objectivists believe that those who survive by preying on others do inestimable harm to themselves, psychologically and otherwise, and that if you want to enjoy your life and flourish you should not steal values, but produce and trade them.
Objectivists therefore would not say that such thievery is "an irrational act of self-interest." Rather, we would say that in order to act in one's self-interest, one must first commit himself to reason -- for how else may he reliably determine that which is in his interest? And in reason, actions such as theft (very generally speaking) are not in one's self-interest, but are self-destructive. That's why we call them "immoral."

Why are you convinced that the approach I've described isn't used "in matters of morality"? Suppose, just for a moment, that the approach I've described is compatible with scenarios such as theft (and that deciding whether or not to eat a donut is equally a "matter of morality"). Where would that leave us?
Let's leave "rights" out of it at present, which leads us towards politics; let's stick with ethics for the moment. In terms of ethics, in terms of morality, why should an Objectivist say that a person ought not be a thief? Why say that a person ought not eat a donut, or a dozen in a sitting, or say contrarily that a person can morally eat a donut from time to time? Beyond the specific answer we reach, what's the purpose of asking and answering such questions at all? What's the point?
Though there is disagreement among Objectivists about certain matters with regards to the core of the Objectivist Ethics (and you can find copious discussion of the same on this board), broadly speaking the purpose of morality -- and the reason why we should have an ethical code at all -- is so that we can enjoy our lives. So that we can "flourish." Accordingly, when we describe something as being "immoral," it is something like a shorthand for saying that it works against an individual's efforts to flourish.
This is important to understand, especially for discussions like the one we're engaged in, and it's sometimes tricky to apply because it runs contrary to what I would say is the world's pervasive understanding of morality. I find that even many Objectivists often have an askew understanding on this point.
Sitting and devoting all of one's time to eating donuts is immoral, not because it arbitrarily runs afoul of certain dogma, not because Ayn Rand wouldn't agree, not because some remote or personal deity has pronounced it so, but because there is a reality to the situation: the person who acts in this fashion will not flourish. He will not enjoy his life, but rather will suffer and die.
Now perhaps you could posit a person who believes (even sincerely) that devoting all of his time to eating donuts will be for the best. And that's fine. I've no reason to tell such a person not to do so, except for all of the reasons why I would not act likewise: the host of potential health complications, opportunity costs, etc., etc., etc. But ultimately the individual has to assess these matters for himself, weighing evidence, reasoning and so on, and at the end of such a process, if a person truly believes that eating donuts is his path to a flourishing life (or if he rejects a flourishing life as a thing of value, though that's a separate but interesting discussion in its own right), well, then, there's nothing left to say to stop him.
Of course, he may be mistaken. He may dive deep into his donut obsession only to find his health failing, his loved ones abandoning him, his bank account depleted, his face covered in maple glaze, and he might regret any number of his choices. But this is always the risk inherent in pursing our ends.
Thievery, qua morality, is not different. It is immoral (to the extent that we can agree that it is), not because it violates some strictures or social norms, but because it is destructive to the individual who pursues it. What wealth the thief pursues through his actions is minor, and fleeting, compared to the wealth of fundamental harms he does to himself, in reality.
And you might disagree with that: you might believe that a thief can steal and get away with it, not just in terms of avoiding criminal justice, but in a much more profound sense. Yet that's the case Rand made. Objectivists believe that those who survive by preying on others do inestimable harm to themselves, psychologically and otherwise, and that if you want to enjoy your life and flourish you should not steal values, but produce and trade them.
Objectivists therefore would not say that such thievery is "an irrational act of self-interest." Rather, we would say that in order to act in one's self-interest, one must first commit himself to reason -- for how else may he reliably determine that which is in his interest? And in reason, actions such as theft (very generally speaking) are not in one's self-interest, but are self-destructive. That's why we call them "immoral."

Briefly, an organism that is in perfect physical health, but miserable on the emotional level, is not flourishing. Any such inbalance takes its toll on its entire existence.
Your concept of flourishing does not reflect reality. Perfect flourishing is not possible because people are confronted with limited time, energy and resources. As a result, they need to make their values play well togheter. For example, you might have to cut your workout time in half so that you have enough time to devote to composing music.
It's a question of scale:
If you're talking about a 'somewhat longer and healthier life' - 100% health vs 94% health - then it's a reasonable compromise. However, a compromise must be defensible. If your compromise literally makes you sick and miserable, then it is not an objective compromise, but self-immolation. 
You could argue that you can switch to a Paleo diet, which will not only stop the donut craving, but also allegedly make donuts taste unappealing. But you could equaly argue that donuts are delicious, and that it would be ridiculous to deprive yourself of this experience in the name of pristine (but joyless) health.
When you're stealing, you're not sacrificing a lower value to a higher one; you're gaining a value at the price of bringing havoc into your life.
Figuring out a flourishing strategy requires that you take in consideration your entire hierarchy of values, your natural abilities, your circumstances and countless other factors. If you can grasp this principle, the answer to your donut question will become obvious.

What makes life worth living is not living life. Life for its own sake is tedious, boring, dutiful, meaningless.
What makes life living is the concrete experiences one enjoys within it. The pleasures one derives from things. Satisfying one's desires. Pre-rational, visceral, gut-level enjoyment. Withouth rhyme or reason, you just like it. And then life has value as a means to those experiences. Life is not the end, it's a means to an end. Strikingly opposite to Objectivist thought.
In my direct experience that is the case.
All the Objectivist virtue and ethics couldn't make me happy or make me want to live. It's when I started listening to my own desires and pleasures, and enjoying things for their own intrinsic pleasure that life started to have value and happiness seemed possible.
When you're depressed, the only thing that matters is how you feel. That life is a value has no power to shake them from their depression, because it's not true for them. Life is only a value if your specific life is a value to you for other things.
Many Objectivists will shift gears and agree that's what they meant all along but they are doing a bait and switch with the meaning of the term life, and it contradicts the fine print of the ethics.

I've taken a look at everyone else's replies but the answer seems rather simple: the domains of emotion and evaluation are not the sole cause of their correlated physiological responses, e.g., nocturnal erections, tearing from sulfur compounds (onions), circadian clocks, etc. For these examples there are no reasons to attribute lust, sadness, or boredom as cause.
With the utter normality in the animal kingdom of infant vocalizations being an invitation for caregiving I see no reason to chalk up to an emotional faculty what can be attributed to evolution.

To add on to this ...
She was a fiction writer, a writer of such scenes as 
Kira getting shot by Soviet border guards as she tries to flee that country "Howard Roark laughed" Hank Rearden holding the lifeless body of the young man only referred to the "Wet Nurse" Eddie Willers getting stranded on a broken down train in a desert We would have never heard of Ayn Rand or read her nonfiction if not she had not first been able to make powerful emotional fiction first.  She came up with her ideas known as Objectivism for the sake of her fiction.  One type of persuasion can lead to others. 

Well, SK already clarified that the question is about the law here, not ethics.
It has been easily established so far that dignity itself is not relevant to legality. The next issue is what to do about it as an individual who wants to leave. What matters is being free to do what one wishes to lead their own life.
Still, self-ownership isn't a principle for Objectivist ethics. We ought to respect people in general as potential traders, while disrespect ignores that potential a lot of the time. Self-ownership is not fundamental anyway - you can't merely "offer your body", as the law ought to only protect and enforce initiation of force. "Offering" yourself is not enforceable, the means to defend that is initiation of force.
The reason this asteroid problem may seem tricky is that the company seems to be within legal bounds - people agreed to the contract and agreed to potential sudden changes. But there's no way out without finishing the job and more humiliation! They'd be trapped.
But being trapped is the whole issue. SK chose an asteroid exactly because it's extreme entrapment. So it's not wild or weird to answer assuming that the company has entrapped employees. They'd be legally obligated to offer a way out (just as locking people in a factory by saying "lol contract change" would be illegal).

yeah, that's more or less what I'm wondering. Marxists and Libertarians agree largely on the problems of the current society of arbitrary government and corporate power but disagree on the causes and the solutions. So I'm trying to think outside my own box and see how some of the issues that really bother me appear from the other end of the political spectrum (and whether that analysis is better or has insights I might have missed). 
I think the error of the labour theory of value is in postulating a sort of "pure" conception of utility that exists independently of the market as a means of evaluating a resources value. its going to be something I will need to look at. 
I got a copy of Capitalism: The unknown ideal yesterday (and reached chapter 5 this morning). its refreshingly bold and will make my head spin for a while. its pretty clear just how big the gulf between left and right ways of thinking on these questions are so I will just have to keep going. The section on anti-trust laws more than likely answers my question by arguing that economic and political power are not equivalent because political power rests on force/violence whereas economic power does not. the "bigness" of a company is a sign of its success and the result of accumulated voluntary transactions. I've not heard anyone put it in those terms before and couldn't really argue against it. 
I guess the issue is who decides that the reason why someone buys something is "stupid" to begin with, as that implies coercion in undermining a person's autonomy. I was more worried about how something like Television can be used to by-pass the rational side of the brain and appeal directly to the emotional part. whether its used for political or commercial reasons, that struck me as very corrosive to free thought. In Randian terms, its an appeal to the subjectivist value of what is "good" as a property of the mind and of emotions. That could be coercive in that what feels good becomes the norm of human behaviour by taking away from the human part and making us more into animals to be herded into Black Friday sales. I guess I'm horrified by how de-humanising it is for people to become a single unthinking collective mass in the name of shopping. In terms of its motivations, its a small step from that to Nuremberg Rallies if you change the symbolism. mobs are pretty scary whatever reason they form. 

It's my own personal example. The FDA prohibits any doctor in the U.S. from administering a legitimately promising treatment derived from my body's own stem cells to treat the arthritis that is gradually robbing me of everything that makes life worth living. Earlier this year I traveled out of the country and paid $33,000 cash plus travel expenses to get this treatment in a jurisdiction that allows it—it's working great, but I only treated 1/3 of the joints that need it, and I need additional treatments in those joints. It took me a year and a half to save enough money to do that much and the reality is I will never be able to afford to get the improvements I need under today's laws. I just paid my self-employment taxes and they took a fifth of everything I was putting toward the next round of treatment to pay my share of Medicare recipients' medical expenses, to say nothing of the $3000+ in premiums I had to pay for a health insurance policy that covers my 33/M self for any medical expenses I might incur related to pregnancy complications and altzheimer's disease, but that the government won't let pay a dime for the only treatment in existence that can make any meaningful difference in my own condition. What a great country. 

I don't understand the point here. The lengthy quoted portion (and no, I didn't click the link to read the whole article, nor do I plan on it) is meant to demonstrate that chiropractors are "on the anti-vaccination bandwagon"? But it does no such thing. The quoted portion demonstrates that these chiropractors are arguing for "freedom of choice," which the author of that article cynically reads as being anti-vaccination; yet he could do the same thing to Gus Van Horn when he writes, "I oppose licensing laws and compulsory vaccination," which is also, essentially, what the chiropractors are quoted as saying.
When Van Horn says, "I recognize that we are far off from the time that abolition will be seriously considered," what "abolition" is he talking about? Currently, as far as I know, parents can still opt out of vaccinations (at least in my state; perhaps that's not true everywhere). Is he assuming that vaccinations will be made mandatory, so we ought not fight against such legal schemes?
"Given that fact, we should, in the meantime, insist that the standards such laws are supposed to enforce be based as much as possible on actual science."
To clarify, I vaccinated my child per our pediatrician's recommendations, and I would advise any other parent to do the same. But I feel confused as to whether Van Horn is arguing that vaccinations ought to be mandatory... and also as to how chiropractors are "worse than I might think." They're worse because they're arguing against mandatory vaccinations? But we should all be arguing against mandatory vaccinations, right?

I don't agree there, I think it's better to build people up than try to tear them down.
How about praising them for their success. I've done this several times, and it have worked extremely well for me. If you're not envious, but instead praise them for what they've done, it can be the start of a friendship and even a business relationship.
If you want success for yourself, you want to surround yourself with people who are smarter and more successful.

Laika:
In answer to your OP I would offer the following as my take on the most important takeaways from Rand's Objectivism re politics.
You and your life belong to you and no one else.  Likewise you have no rightful claim to anyone else or their lives.  Any initiation of force injected into interactions between men is thus immoral.  Force is only moral in retaliation and in the protection of individual rights.
There is plenty more believe me but as far as important basics these are the ones which stand out to me.

Laika,
Welcome to the Forum; I find your statements above particularly interesting. It would not be the first time I have engaged a self-identifying Communist here, but you seem to be questioning your own rationale regarding Marx. You must understand by now that there is no utopian paradise, nor any process of achieving one, at least in the sense intended by Marx. Objectivism does not promise utopia. Rather, it is a philosophy detailing a path to personal fulfillment and possibly the creation of the most just society possible under a purely capitalist system, separating economic activity from government action. We may never arrive at the later, but you have every opportunity to discover more about the former. I am unable to offer any recommendations with regard to your depression, only to say that in my youth, I could only see the bleak outcome of social and political trends, if carried to their extremes, and it frightened me. I knew nothing about Ayn Rand or her Objectivism, only the absurdity of social, political, and cultural norms. I knew about Marx; I always considered him to have been a fraud, as well as an easy target for Right-Wing pundits and common place conversation. But one of the great contributing factors to the problems of our times is that few if any people question their own notions of right and wrong, let alone seek out a philosophical school of thought. It is apparent from your posts that you have put a great deal of thought into your philosophical outlook. As for your list of six questions opening this thread, I will limit my response to only number six: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character, a caricature created by Oliver Stone. If you look at Stone's body of works, you see many films critical of American militarism, capitalism, and Right-Wing points of view in general with no regard for honesty. Objectivism does not support Right-Wing politics any more than it supports Left-Wing politics. Inasmuch as I hope you will keep examining the works of Ayn Rand, I hope you find the honesty lacking in Marx, and possibly even your happiness.

Welcome to the board. I hope you benefit from your time here.
As a lazy answer, I don't think it can be questioned that Rand's experiences in Russia/the USSR had enormous influence on her, just as I expect that any individual is enormously influenced by the circumstances of their upbringing. But to the extent that Objectivism is "atheistic" and "materialistic," I think it would be a mistake to try to find the reason(s) for that in the fact that Rand hailed from a particular country (if that is the proposed project); Rand typically gives incredibly thought-out and painstakingly argued reasons for her positions on sundry topics, and those reasons -- right or wrong -- stand without respect to the origin of author (or reader).
That said, I'm certain that Rand's early experiences and education emphasized certain readings or access to specific intellectual strains of thought, or etc., and perhaps that's what you're after, to trace the intellectual history of her ideas. Rand herself chiefly acknowledged Aristotle, though I have heard that she was influenced by Nietzsche early on...
But come to that, others here are Rand scholars who can offer much more insight into this question than I.
I'm not certain what you mean by "Socialist Objectivism," but let me try to speak to "altruism." Yes, Objectivists use "altruism" in a rather narrow, specific way, which is the idea that actions are considered moral to the extent that they benefit others (in contrast to selfish actions, which benefit the self).
Rand on "altruism": "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."
Rand on "selfishness": "[T]he exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is: concern with one’s own interests. [...] The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. [...] Since selfishness is 'concern with one’s own interests,' the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense."
This is what Rand (and knowledgeable Objectivists) mean when using those terms. There are yet many actions (which we could roundly describe as "kind" or "benevolent" or even "charitable") which society would sometimes consider "altruistic" that are not contrary to Rand's selfishness -- but are, in fact, quite selfish.
Rand writes, for instance, "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."
And this is just so. (If you take away from this that an Objectivist could morally give a dime to a beggar, in a given context, I would say that you are correct.) Some people try to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Objectivists by noting, for instance, that the Ayn Rand Institute is "non-profit" (and donates books to schools!), or that one of the Atlas Shrugged movies used Kickstarter as a partial source of funding, or etc. Those people do not understand what Objectivists believe, though this does not appear to give them any pause in their invective.
So, good on you for trying!
Climate change is a matter for scientists, and while philosophy sets the ground rules for scientific thought, Objectivism qua philosophy does not have a position on whether the climate is changing, or what the cause is, or etc. Accordingly, you will find diverse opinions among Objectivists on those sorts of questions.
Personally, I'm not sufficiently educated about climate change to hold forth on it to any great extent, though I am impressed (and distressed) by the seeming scientific consensus. I know there are skeptical challenges to various models, and use of data, and etc., but again, I'm not sufficiently educated on these topics to be able to say much more.
I take it for granted that catastrophic climate change is a real possibility for planet Earth, whether man-made or not, because obviously the climate has changed in the past (in ways I would regard as "catastrophic" for human life, if repeated), and I expect it could again. If technological innovation has the potential to help mankind combat such catastrophic outcomes, should they threaten -- and I would suppose that such innovation is our best hope, speaking generally -- then I would want man to be unfettered to think and work and pursue those innovations. This "unfettering" refers to political "liberty," which is what Objectivists mean when referring to "capitalism," which thus primarily refers to a political system and not economics, as such.
This said, there are specific scenarios related to the environment which I believe would justify "interventions in the marketplace," by which I mean regulatory laws (or criminal laws, or civil lawsuits). If we were to determine that polluting the ocean (which is a common resource; or at least, I don't know of any proposal to privatize it yet) to whatever extent is bound to exterminate the world's algae, let's say, and thus choke off all of our oxygen, or what-have-you, then yes, we cannot be allowed to pollute the ocean like that (though such a discussion would be heavily nuanced and context-dependent). If this makes me a heretic in the eyes of other Objectivists, so be it, but my policy is to keep breathing.
Edited to add: As to the question of whether climate change (real or imagined) could lead to totalitarianism, well yeah. But the power hungry have never wanted for reasons to impose their wills on others, and totalitarianism has seemed to exist in every age. If climate change could spark a resurgence in totalitarianism (and it certainly seems to me to have that potential), the path will have been paved by centuries of philosophical thought which have argued for self-sacrifice (in the interests of the state, or God, or the race, or etc.) and against the rights and happiness of individual human beings.
There is no Objectivist dictum like "free markets lead to free societies," so far as I am aware, and I would redirect you to what I've said above, which is that Objectivism is primarily concerned with a moral political system (which we find in protecting individual rights, which we call "liberty"/capitalism) and not economic outcomes, as such. (Though many Objectivists may appeal to various economists who have argued that such liberty does generally result in prosperity, and etc.)
That said, a "free market" is not simply an absence of state authority... and in fact, a "free market" is not possible without some state authority to protect people in the use of their individual rights, whether in producing goods, trading them, or consuming them. The market is not "free" (and not truly a "market"), for instance, if you can steal from me with impunity. That's not an example of a free society, either, and such lawlessness is not what Objectivists regard as either moral or desirable.
I never would have described myself as Marxist-Communist, or an anarchist, but I was certainly a liberal in my youth. The experiences that led me to shift are probably too numerous to mention, but as a quick reduction I'll say that I read a number of influential books (including Rand, but not exclusively written by her), and I've spent many years applying ideas, testing them out in my own life, reviewing the results, studying history and my own past, and etc.
It is a complex process.
Throughout my intellectual development (which began when I was a liberal, and many years before discovering Objectivism), and despite the pride of place I now give to "happiness" and "self-esteem," I was led onward in the main by a passion for discovering the truth of things.
I watched Wall Street when I was young, and I cannot tell you what impression it made on me (because I do not remember). I imagine that the stereotypical "businessman world-beater" aesthetic did not do much for me at the time, as, quite frankly, it does not do much for me now.

Welcome to the board. I hope you benefit from your time here.
As a lazy answer, I don't think it can be questioned that Rand's experiences in Russia/the USSR had enormous influence on her, just as I expect that any individual is enormously influenced by the circumstances of their upbringing. But to the extent that Objectivism is "atheistic" and "materialistic," I think it would be a mistake to try to find the reason(s) for that in the fact that Rand hailed from a particular country (if that is the proposed project); Rand typically gives incredibly thought-out and painstakingly argued reasons for her positions on sundry topics, and those reasons -- right or wrong -- stand without respect to the origin of author (or reader).
That said, I'm certain that Rand's early experiences and education emphasized certain readings or access to specific intellectual strains of thought, or etc., and perhaps that's what you're after, to trace the intellectual history of her ideas. Rand herself chiefly acknowledged Aristotle, though I have heard that she was influenced by Nietzsche early on...
But come to that, others here are Rand scholars who can offer much more insight into this question than I.
I'm not certain what you mean by "Socialist Objectivism," but let me try to speak to "altruism." Yes, Objectivists use "altruism" in a rather narrow, specific way, which is the idea that actions are considered moral to the extent that they benefit others (in contrast to selfish actions, which benefit the self).
Rand on "altruism": "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."
Rand on "selfishness": "[T]he exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is: concern with one’s own interests. [...] The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. [...] Since selfishness is 'concern with one’s own interests,' the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense."
This is what Rand (and knowledgeable Objectivists) mean when using those terms. There are yet many actions (which we could roundly describe as "kind" or "benevolent" or even "charitable") which society would sometimes consider "altruistic" that are not contrary to Rand's selfishness -- but are, in fact, quite selfish.
Rand writes, for instance, "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."
And this is just so. (If you take away from this that an Objectivist could morally give a dime to a beggar, in a given context, I would say that you are correct.) Some people try to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Objectivists by noting, for instance, that the Ayn Rand Institute is "non-profit" (and donates books to schools!), or that one of the Atlas Shrugged movies used Kickstarter as a partial source of funding, or etc. Those people do not understand what Objectivists believe, though this does not appear to give them any pause in their invective.
So, good on you for trying!
Climate change is a matter for scientists, and while philosophy sets the ground rules for scientific thought, Objectivism qua philosophy does not have a position on whether the climate is changing, or what the cause is, or etc. Accordingly, you will find diverse opinions among Objectivists on those sorts of questions.
Personally, I'm not sufficiently educated about climate change to hold forth on it to any great extent, though I am impressed (and distressed) by the seeming scientific consensus. I know there are skeptical challenges to various models, and use of data, and etc., but again, I'm not sufficiently educated on these topics to be able to say much more.
I take it for granted that catastrophic climate change is a real possibility for planet Earth, whether man-made or not, because obviously the climate has changed in the past (in ways I would regard as "catastrophic" for human life, if repeated), and I expect it could again. If technological innovation has the potential to help mankind combat such catastrophic outcomes, should they threaten -- and I would suppose that such innovation is our best hope, speaking generally -- then I would want man to be unfettered to think and work and pursue those innovations. This "unfettering" refers to political "liberty," which is what Objectivists mean when referring to "capitalism," which thus primarily refers to a political system and not economics, as such.
This said, there are specific scenarios related to the environment which I believe would justify "interventions in the marketplace," by which I mean regulatory laws (or criminal laws, or civil lawsuits). If we were to determine that polluting the ocean (which is a common resource; or at least, I don't know of any proposal to privatize it yet) to whatever extent is bound to exterminate the world's algae, let's say, and thus choke off all of our oxygen, or what-have-you, then yes, we cannot be allowed to pollute the ocean like that (though such a discussion would be heavily nuanced and context-dependent). If this makes me a heretic in the eyes of other Objectivists, so be it, but my policy is to keep breathing.
Edited to add: As to the question of whether climate change (real or imagined) could lead to totalitarianism, well yeah. But the power hungry have never wanted for reasons to impose their wills on others, and totalitarianism has seemed to exist in every age. If climate change could spark a resurgence in totalitarianism (and it certainly seems to me to have that potential), the path will have been paved by centuries of philosophical thought which have argued for self-sacrifice (in the interests of the state, or God, or the race, or etc.) and against the rights and happiness of individual human beings.
There is no Objectivist dictum like "free markets lead to free societies," so far as I am aware, and I would redirect you to what I've said above, which is that Objectivism is primarily concerned with a moral political system (which we find in protecting individual rights, which we call "liberty"/capitalism) and not economic outcomes, as such. (Though many Objectivists may appeal to various economists who have argued that such liberty does generally result in prosperity, and etc.)
That said, a "free market" is not simply an absence of state authority... and in fact, a "free market" is not possible without some state authority to protect people in the use of their individual rights, whether in producing goods, trading them, or consuming them. The market is not "free" (and not truly a "market"), for instance, if you can steal from me with impunity. That's not an example of a free society, either, and such lawlessness is not what Objectivists regard as either moral or desirable.
I never would have described myself as Marxist-Communist, or an anarchist, but I was certainly a liberal in my youth. The experiences that led me to shift are probably too numerous to mention, but as a quick reduction I'll say that I read a number of influential books (including Rand, but not exclusively written by her), and I've spent many years applying ideas, testing them out in my own life, reviewing the results, studying history and my own past, and etc.
It is a complex process.
Throughout my intellectual development (which began when I was a liberal, and many years before discovering Objectivism), and despite the pride of place I now give to "happiness" and "self-esteem," I was led onward in the main by a passion for discovering the truth of things.
I watched Wall Street when I was young, and I cannot tell you what impression it made on me (because I do not remember). I imagine that the stereotypical "businessman world-beater" aesthetic did not do much for me at the time, as, quite frankly, it does not do much for me now.