How does that make 'crime' invalid? Whether you believe it's simply a social contract or an intrinsic truth, or even simply an abstract construct, the idea of crime being defined and punished as crime deters most from committing acts that would overtly harm others. Even if you cite percentages of criminals in modern states, it still isn't the majority of the population. Crime isn't invalid simply because people aren't rational or are superstitious; in fact, I would think that it makes the concept of crime all the more needed, to prevent those with the will and the resources to harm the majority from harming them.

But, please, tell me how it makes the concept of 'crime' invalid, because I'm not following.

What real harm is it going to cause? The fall of humanity? Look at everything around you, crime is defined by what you interpret it as. What IS a homicide? It is only defined by what you interpret is as. After a person dies/is killed, the organic matter that made them up is still there, is it not? Thats all they ever were, just organic matter.

Your ignorance and/or intepretation of the law means nothing to judges and juries in the court of law. If you don't recognize homicide as crime and commit it, it doesn't matter if you have a different definition of it, you will be tried and indicted.
Don't pose any anarchic hypotheticals in this thread, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wish to do so, create a seperate thread about it.

Theres nothing wrong with my nihilistic point of view. In a sense, its more rational then the system of laws we have created. My reply was directed towards mother Theresa being a 'criminal', which she is clearly not. She did what she did for the benefit of the people she was caring for, where do you think the millions of dollars went?

I have a few questions though, how about love?

Love for a person/animal or any other thing you might think of that you could love.
Isnt that, or does it come close to Altruism?

A human being driven purely by its ego, would compromise as little as possible, and since we are all human beings with ego aspects we have to live together. Which means we will have to compromise our ego's wish every day ( or at least many times ) Sure this might be because we just "have"to ( because of laws and such ), but when love comes into play you can actually "want" to compromise your own wants and needs. This could just be because you like to be treated by others in a good way so you feel better, that "that" might be why you treat others in a nice way and compromise certain ego urges, so that the main urge of the ego is still satisfied.

A mother giving her life for that of her child, out of love? or should we call that instinct

Another question is: How does an objectivist experience love? and would this mean a true objective person would let his/her child die just because it is more rational toward the self? After all you could just make another one and not end the self.

Why do we like to see people happy, and why do we often feel happy ourselves when people we love are happy?

I myself love people that live by what they feel and try to symphatize with all that they encounter, instead of categorising everything as more or less or no value at all. We already have computers for that.

Also if all people would symphatise with all that is around them instead of focussing on only themselves and their own needs, people would help eachother and stop screwing with eachothers lives all over the world just because they "want more". An objectivist would have to realise that from that moment on people would symphatise with them, thesame way they themselves would symphatise with those people. I think it would be obvious that happyness all over the world would increase a big deal. Which would be a very rational goal to strife for. Saying supporting this goal is irrational makes you yourself one man/woman that stands in the way of something that is totally possible if you let it, instead of blocking it by not looking past your own ego. Which would then make you yourself irrational as well as hypocritical. Therefore i think selflessness can exist it is just not recognized by those who let their lives be dominated by their own ego's. Maybe selflessness transforms into unity.

Although i still stand by the idea that rationallity is subjective to the eye of the beholder.
and 100% objectivists are pretty much equal to religion extremists in my view, because they also reject other beliefs reasoning and perspectives and clearly think that those who do not follow thesame reason are inferior. which i hardly find rational in any way.

Btw:Objectivity in man has never been "proven" and phylosophers still debate over it, if it is in fact even possible to achieve, - directed to all that use the word objective like a jehova uses his/her bible -