StrictlyLogical

It depends on what colleges are available, how much real knowledge they teach, how much Marxist indoctrination they push etc.
It may be worth the money to self learn, hire persons with knowledge, private tutors, mentors etc.
 
Good parents do everything in their power to launch their children as high and as far as they wish to go, sometimes that is something more spiritual than economic, like a small business, or career in art... it depends greatly on the context of the child's wants and needs and realistic dreams, and the means of the parents, good people work this out and do their best.
 
Rationalizing falling short of this is usually confined to people who really would rather have the "hat" than feed the child...[paraphrasing]
but really that was one of THE wisest things Rand ever said in her writings.

Arguendo "wanting" to have or keep raising children MEANS being prepared for, and earnestly and genuinely loving and caring for another person who starts out deeply dependent.  Whether it fits any philosophical standard, humans DO literally need love to grow into a sane and moral adult.. it is not a psychological luxury, it is a deep human necessity.
Perhaps it is only moral to "have" and/or be the guardian of anyone, if and only if you actually WANT to be one, with everything that entails, and ALL that it means.
 
Summary:  Have a kid you don't want and/or cannot care for? Just  f#@&ing give it up for adoption as soon/early as you know, so someone else can do so.  Our world would be a MUCH better place, and so many people SO much better off, if everyone followed this.

I think the thing which sets Objectivism apart is its amenability to non-deterministic causation/action  flowing from absolute identity.
Things behave according to their nature, lawfully, but not all things do so strictly in a deterministically Leibnizian manner. 
Free-will is not the ability of a person to choose against his or her own nature/identity in some arbitrary way, but the freedom to choose from a number of possible choices perfectly consistent with the person's nature/identity.
 
Free will is non-deterministic but not completely arbitrary.

The problem is that it is not just a legal entity. Rather, it is a government entity, empowered with government functions and powers, and controlled by a single corporation. That corporation obtained that special privilege in the '60s by corrupting the Florida legislature.
Let's be clear—Disney is not some free market hero who fought government and improved property rights for all. Rather, they bribed and corrupted a state legislature to gain exemptions from law, special privileges and their own local government, for themselves. That is not capitalism, it is crony-statism.

Most of these people still buy the altruist morality.  Most of them do not understand what government is.  
This makes them ineffective as defenders of rights or of freedom.
Only when enough people learn what Ayn Rand has to teach.
 

This bears repeating.
 

People everywhere are coming to see that smear as nothing more than an evasion aid for information that upsets one's worldview, information the implications of which one is not comfortable facing.
For example, "covid hospitalizations" and "covid deaths" overcounting has been an easily confirmable fact since the beginning of the Scamdemic. But normie simpletons refused to look at the information and relied instead on their favorite smear.
The truth is that very few people, including self-identifying Objectivists, are willing to think for themselves. Too often people will reject objective evidence they don't like with smears of the messenger and wait until "respectable outlets" (or Mr. Brook) tell them what to think.
 

Here is a link to an article about one success in restraining the power of the administrative state: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-ftc-sec-in-jurisdictional-fight-f63f1c0b?st=xr51uj3q44n7m8t&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Traditional Statists and authoritarians on the left and right have played a game and worked with each other for a very long time, and they continue to do so.
 
Trump represents a new kind of right which expressly (possibly honestly..) aims to dismantle the deep state and corruption, promising more individual freedom and rights (as those on the Right understand them).  He certainly is supported by that new kind of Right.
It WOULD be great, if a new kind of Left (not too far now...) arose which also expressly aims to dismantle the deep state and corruption, promising more individual freedom and rights (as those on the Left understand them).  The left which used to stand for an enlightened empowerment of the disenfranchised and the common man in face of perceived corruption by greedy capitalists... needs to step up (as they like to say so often).
What we need is a united front against authoritarianism, the deep state, and corruption, Left, Right, religious and non-religious...
 
we need humans for humanity.

If you mean that he would know it is fentanyl and what it can do to him, this may not quite be murder, but it comes pretty close.  (I mean morally; I'm not sure about the legalities.)  A very similar case would be actively helping someone to carry out their own choice of committing suicide, when you believe that choice to be irrational.  I think the other posters have done a good job of explaining what's wrong with such actions.
 

The issue is planning an action to hasten the end of a life. The OP thinks their life will be better after the death of the other individual and wants to orchestrate it, their only qualm is whether or not they will be let into Galt's Gulch Heaven.

The moral is what should be done or permissibly may be done given certain sorts of factors marked off as moral considerations. In Rand’s view, and in mine, rational process is what distinctively moral process comes to. What is the nature of rational process?
For the imagined scenario, if it is being asked whether the entertained action would be moral, within the Objectivist ethics, then I’d argue No. It would not be morally permissible on account of the virtues of Pride, Productivity, and Justice.
The last entails treating people as ends in themselves. Even if they are losing their powers for autonomy, homage to autonomous life-making they formerly had or had possible is within what may and should be respected by the rational agent in Rand’s sense of human rationality. Rand’s virtuous human buoys the best possible to humans.  Similarly, if a person said all their life that they wished their body to be cremated upon their death, it is against human rationality to instead bury the body upon their death, assuming cremation was indeed feasible, with the rationalization: “Well, it can’t matter to the deceased.” Respectful behavior for a life and autonomous person that had been or had been a potential in youth is within the ambit of Randian rationality and self-respect.
To focus on the getting of money by lottery, inheritance, or design of tort, is betrayal of the virtue of production and trade in the context of human existence and failure at holding productivity as the central organizing purpose of one’s life. Then too, as Rand had it, the getting of money is not the only rational human pursuit, and the pretension that her ethics entails such foolishness concerning values is a patent distortion of her thought (one she denounced expressly).
The virtue of Pride in the Objectivist system of ethics entails moral ambitiousness. The making of objectively grounded self-esteem has a precondition: “that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit.”

Libel protection will not necessarily protect a CEO. When a corporation loses a legal case, the shareholders suffer and they, in turn, react to the CEO.
Any legal protection that is given to a CEO is known. It is not sprung on us, it is not a fraud. A bank will not lend money to a corporation or LLC without collateral. You can choose to do or avoid doing business with any corporation. If you are forced to do business with a corporation, the "forcing" must be stopped. But more importantly, you have to make the case that you are being "forced" to do business with it. Are we being forced by corporations to do business with them?
When we do business with a corporation, a "country", or a partnership, the entire entity should be held responsible. The problem is "they" usually are a large group of people that can vote and that will finance voting which causes governmental collusion. Not the business entity concept itself.
The crony capitalism we have right now allows for harmful decisions because of illegitimate protection obtained by collusion with the government. It's not the idea of "government" or "corporation" that is at fault. Collusion or legal corruption or corporate welfare via the government is due to the morality of collectivism and utilitarianism that permeates the culture.

It was meant as sarcasm , a parody of an argument one might hear from those who refuse to see the level of corruption in practically all of our institutions. Corporations or private entities that cooperate with government, for ‘good or bad’ cease to be private entities. It’s a little fascistic, unless as an argument goes they are cooperating with the regime to investigate and curtail dissent er I mean criminality. 
 
I’m starting to think western culture needs to reconsider the idea of corporations and corporate governance.

Isn't it fun that we haven't seen a single one of Epstein and Maxwell's elite politician/billionaire child sex trafficking clients indicted, but instead Trump gets indicted, on charges that Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz describes as "Micky Mouse charges made against a man running for President" ... "this is American injustice at its worst." https://rumble.com/v2gdjco-liberal-media-cancels-dershowitz-for-exposing-fraud-theory-alvin-bragg-conc.html
 

The misrepresentation that crosses the law is a misdemeanor offense , the DA is trying to make it a felony by claiming the actions furthered a plan to commit election finance fraud. What percentage of the total outlays for campaign expenditures did the 130k represent? Reasonable-ness is still a character of law , no ?
NDA's are legitimate legal instruments, why are they not to be considered an expense for Trump's private business concerns?
Does NY state law have jurisdiction over a federal election, they can override the FEC?
The DA's office has yet to publicly state what the 'other' crimes were that elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, so more to see .
The court/judge in this case sentenced Trump's CFO to 3 months in Riker's Island because he wouldn't 'flip' on DJT, these are not nice people, most rational are 'nice'.

The legal argument Bragg would have to make is that paying for an NDA or buying the rights to a story is the same as a campaign expense and that internal quasi-fictitious bookkeeping was employed for the sole purpose of misleading campaign finance statutes. A charge that could not be brought if any argument can be made that the use of the NDA could also be motivated for any other such purpose. ‘Protecting’ personal and or business reputations are legitimate ‘other’ uses, whether or not they are concurrent with being involved in a campaign for office.
Hostile authorities in agencies with purview/jurisdiction over these actions already passed on any sanctions for the same activities, it’s bs.

The pyramids of Egypt perhaps are a greater monument of sorts…  a headstone clearly marking the price, the involuntary sacrifice of other lives with greater transparency, a testament to the glory to the vision of the few who wielded power, physical and mental, over the many.
For all the promise of what America could and should one day be, the Apollo program is a grim illustration of how man’s development of technology (even perhaps if necessary with the backdrop of a cold war) has outpaced man’s progress in wisdom and morality, in politics and ethics.  
I for one would rather that technological advances only follow our social and political progress towards individualism …
I am sure our voluntary funding of such ventures would have been all the more spiritually pure and clean even if delayed by the decades or perhaps centuries it would have taken us to deserve the pride proper to such an untainted achievement. 

As soon as he can come up with a prediction which is independently verifiable via experiment (assuming he understands the importance of such in science) which comes out of his theories and contradicts the present models…  I will look into his theory of the universe.  
Until then, I cannot take him seriously.

Can you post a link?
Sometimes a TOE (theory of everything) from certain quarters looks more like a TFA ... (Theory For ANYTHING).
 
I can come up with one:
Things don't have properties... things do not have location or occupy space, in fact there are no things, there is only space , and space has latent fluctuating properties which we see as things.
Space can have density, color, electromagnetic fields, weight, etc.  these, many more, and in fact all of the other properties and attributes we see in nature.  We mistakenly associate them with entities.  But, the fluctuations of these properties OF space, in the coincidental combinations which we associate with objects, is an illusion.  There are NO things, just properties of space.... 
All is space whose aspects are simply turned on and off and at various amplitudes at various positions, and which interact and change over time...
See?  SOLVED it!
 

Certainly there is a spectrum between pure "that" and a complete "what".
I am reminded of Peikoff speaking of disembodied sensations (or attributes?) in the context of a cigarette or something... the light, the heat, and that they are not received or processed separately ... we could add motion and touch and sound and smell (not the best of senses for a human but)... 
In my own thinking, the number and nature of these correlated "Thats" can sometimes mean an impressively developed "What" is formed pre-cognitively as a kind of complex familiar "Those/That" kind of "Whatness".

Rand on Discernment of That and What
Nathaniel Branden: “Percepts constitute the actual starting-point of human knowledge, in the sense that percepts are man’s first fully aware cognitive contact with the world” (c.1968, 38).  The term percept is from Peirce and his contemporaries (see Moore 1961, cited in Rand 1966–67, 2; further, Wilson 2016, 190–95, 204–5).
Rand had written in the 1957 exposition of her philosophy: “The task of [man’s] senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.” She defined man’s reason as “the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses.” (Rand was still using that definition in her 1960.)
She took human knowledge to run part-and-sum “from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end” (1016). “Sensations are . . . an automatic form of knowledge” (1961a, 18). A sensation is “a sensation of something, as distinguished from the nothing of the preceding and succeeding moments” (1966–67). Rand took knowledge broadly enough at times such that sensation, which informs perceivers only that something exists, not what exists, counts as some knowledge. Knowledge for humans would be, in full, “a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation” (1966–67, 45; further, 1970, 84–87).
Rand had taken all consciousness fundamentally to be identification (1957, 1016). So all perception, even perception of a first ray of light in infancy, would be an identification. It is therefore not surprising that in her later articulation of Objectivism she would contract her definition of reason to simply: “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses” (1961a, 20) in place of “perceives, identifies and integrates . . . .”
Rand had it that “sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically by the brain of a man or of an animal” (1961b, 14). Those perceptions in humans are volitionally integrated into conceptual comprehension by reason. Sensations are transitory identifications, not identifying what, only that. Unless a sensation is itself focused upon—say, in neuropsychology—it is not, in Rand’s meaning of the concept sensation, retained in memory, which I cash to mean specifically not retained in working memory or in episodic or semantic memory (i.e., retained only in iconic memory). 
Conceptualization, conjecture, and inference come under the name reason for Rand by falling under the volitional identification and integration of material from the senses. In Rand’s view, as with Reid and Peirce, the conscious uptake from the senses for the makings of reason is sensory information already automatically integrated into percepts. (See further, Kelley 1986, 31,  44–51, 141–74.) “A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. . . . Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident” (1966–67, 5). Animals capable of percepts, perceive entities, in Rand’s categoreal sense of that term. Percepts and their objects are susceptible to retention in memory.
Peirce had stressed that sense impressions are not first in our knowledge. We are not shut out from the external world,
Once Rand had taken on percept and its position in cognition from sensation to reason, I think she really needed to do a little refinement on her 1957 statement that it is only by reason that we discern what an existent is. Animals capable of percepts have some of what a perceived thing is and what actions a thing affords right there. So do we. It remains, of course, that with reason we grasp more, much more, of what a perceived thing is.
Additionally, by now it is overwhelming in the neurobiological evidence that into neural activity streams feeding into a percept is a good deal of what a thing is.* None of that formation is volitional, and all of it remains as the given, for conceptualization and reasoning on it. That is, such rich percepts, giving some what in addition to that, can remain first cognitive, aware, contact with the world and sound foundation for knowledge.
When we have a percept, it includes places, motions, and some temporal relations in a scene. Are these part of the what a thing is? Or are they only part of the that a thing is?
In Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she articulated some additional metaphysics, and among these additions was the thesis that no existent is without relation to other things. A thing purported to stand in no such relations would be nothing (ITOE 39). That is, there are no concrete existents that do not stand in some external relations. That tunes well with Aristotle: Things “are not such that nothing that pertains to one kind is related to another, but there is some relation” (Metaphysics, 1075a16–17).
External relations are there, ready for conscious recognition in percepts and concepts and predications. I suggest that in Rand’s metaphysics and her concept of percepts, her system needs a minor repair by acknowledgement that wheres and whens are within percepts, delivered as aspects of concrete existents, delivered both as that and what of existents
*E.g. "Feedforward, Horizontal, and Feedback Processing in the Visual Cortex" by Lamme, Supèr, and Spekreise in Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 1998, 8:529–35.
(I'll try to list the References in a later post.)

Language, concept, number, these we are possessed of and are all part of our grasping of and our relating ourselves to entities.
Entities themselves, however, are not in any way possessed of any of language, concept, or number.
That we "find" them poetic or majestic, of a kind or a phenotype, or multitudinous or stochastic, although somethings of them, something about their identity, is touchable and accessible by our various abstraction apparatuses, those somethings of them are not themselves linguistic, conceptual, or mathematical. 
For those, are only us, as they only ever could and should be.

Given the specific formalization of QM as accepted I would suspect other kinds of numbers as operators or coefficients to the so-called “states” would be improper somehow.
I played around with quaternions, more specifically a sort of Mandelbrot generalization to render fractals on a … believe it or not… Amiga computer back in the day.  I believe there are multiple imaginary bases i j and k, each squared is -1 but the product of any two is the other (positive or negative depending on the order of multiplication) 

Ah yes, this is the convention of using a complex refractive index in calculations to take into account absorption.  Quite a convenient use of complex numbers, relating incident light to absorption of light in the material as a function of depth.