I’ve been reading quite a few threads that talk about Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism and it is quite evident that her work is almost universally misunderstood or misrepresented as a sociopath’s manifesto. Though I’m sure that it is the adopted creed of most sociopaths, I do not believe that it was ever intended as such. Much like Christianity and the Bible, Objectivism and Ayn Rand’s works have been dissected and have been quoted out of context to justify the unreasonable actions of those who would try to do harm for personal gain. I compare the two works because when you break them down to their fundamental principles, they are nearly identical by my own interpretation. They both teach the value of honest reasoning, and free will as a sacred human right.

How did I draw that conclusion? Jesus gave only two commandments, the first of them was to essentially live by the golden rule. In Rand’s work we see one theme that stands out far above any other and that is that the only true evil in this world is when one man takes by force the physical, intellectual, or spiritual property of another man for his own gain. In other words, Rand illustrates that free will is a sacred human right deserved by all. However, both books are widely quoted by those whose actions contradict the true principles taught. They are the basis of this bad behavior because of certain ideas within that are taken out of context.