“A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions.” – Ayn Rand
(This post is intended for those who have benefited from my philanthropy through the Prometheus Foundation, the Objective Standard, and other organizations I fund.)
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand identified the nature of “looting”—the belief that need creates a claim on the values of others. The looter does not say, “I have produced this; therefore it is mine.” He says, “I need this; therefore, you must surrender it.” He does not obtain values by trade, persuasion, production, or consent. He obtains them by pressure, manipulation, force, or the misuse of institutions designed to protect rights (e.g., the courts).
My recent posts, “The $9 Million Heist” and “The $9 Million Heist: Facts and Evidence,” give the details of Craig & Sarah Biddle’s’ looting through their company Objective Standard Institute. The Biddle’s declare in court filings that OSI needs my trust funds to survive. And they have been rapidly spending the funds, out of so-called “necessity,” on payroll, LevelUp and other conference-related expenses, and, most obnoxiously, to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees in a battle against Prometheus Foundation and me to declare unenforceable the very restrictions on the use of my trust drafted by Craig!
I have supported various Objectivists for decades because I believe ideas matter and that Ayn Rand’s ideas are true. I have provided significant support to the Biddle family because I believed Craig was advancing rational ideas and values—my values. I trusted him. I relied on his professed commitment to honesty and principle.
But the test of one’s commitment to their philosophy is not what one says at conferences or in essays. The test is what one does when reality becomes inconvenient, and money is at stake.
Craig professes to uphold Ayn Rand’s philosophy. He has made himself a public figure and built a public reputation on teaching Objectivism, speaking the language of reason, independence, integrity, and justice. But his conduct betrays those very principles.
Rand’s villains always have causes. They always have emergencies. They always have public-spirited language. They always have beneficiaries to parade before the world. But beneath the rhetoric was the same demand: “You must surrender your values because we need them.”
Rand’s looter presents his need as a claim. He asks you to treat his failure to produce, his inability to sustain himself, his dependence on someone else’s values as a moral blank check.
But Objectivism rejects that morality. A need is not a claim. A failing organization like OSI does not somehow acquire ownership of trust funds because it cannot survive otherwise.
The deeper betrayal is that Craig speaks and writes the language of Objectivism. He knows the difference between production and dependence, and the difference between consent and coercion. He has lectured others on honesty, justice, and independence. Yet when the issue becomes his survival, he abandons those very principles and loots in Ayn Rand’s terminology. Craig is slick. When challenged, he has an answer for everything.
When an organization like OSI cannot survive without consuming someone else’s charitable contributions intended to benefit the Objectivist community without expressly required permission, the solution is not to loot those funds. The moral solution is to face reality, reduce expenses, raise voluntary support from others, and continue to honor agreements—or shut down.
As always, I remain ready to provide any documentation or information you might desire to demonstrate the truth of the statements in this and all my posts.
Carl B. Barney
July 2, 2026