A little back and forth with KHALLING on the "OBJECTIVIST BAD GUYS?" post got me to thinking.

I'm an Objectivist. I've read most of the books and consider myself well informed on the subject. I understand all about force and fraud.

But now I'm at something of a loss.

If I had been one of Wynand's victims, if he had destroyed my life for no better reason that profit and power - I would have killed him.

No joke. Really.

Why not?
What recourse does an average Joe have against a billionaire with a newspaper?
Only Sam Colt can equalize that kind of social disparity.

As for his life - he was the one who set the stakes when he chose to DESTROY mine.
Sure for me it was only my hopes and dreams, my career, my family - lets see what else can I add to the list?! At some point that kind of damage warrants killing.

Consider also, how many more innocent people would he crush if he's not stopped.

No, I would have no compunction about pulling that trigger.

But, if his smear campaign is just the usual "absent malice" BS that papers often resort to - the half-lies/half-truths that pass for reporting sometimes, then he has actually committed no fraud.

What crime has he actually committed that warrants his death?

(Before you say "none" remember that Mrs. Rand herself killed him off to atone for his sins.)

I'm sure I'm missing something.
'Little help here?