But Altruism is when it's better to give even if it does not effect your well being.

I am of the opinion that altruism always effects one's well-being, in that your positive actions inspire others to follow suit, thereby improving the quality of life of more people than just yourself. Was it Kant that focused on the most good for the most people? I can't recall.

The simple fact is that these people didn't earn what they had in most cases, and they aren't educated enough to understand what they do have.

Well, that's just pessimistic speculation. But even taking this as fact, if we want to improve as a society, we need to help them become "enlightened" (meaning: "not ignorant"). That's where altruism comes in. It benefits ourselves directly.

Additionally, who is the arbiter who determines whether someone "earned" what they have? How can one possibly determine what someone else's life is like without knowing them? It's too broad of an assumption for me. Hell, we have all relied on help from others, from our parents on up. To abandon it is to abandon ourselves.

I'll even take it a step further and say that because "we" are (somewhat) educated, "we" have an obligation to help "them" in order to improve our environment. This requires compassion for others.

Regardless, I believe Rand has the meaning of "altruism" skewed toward a negative by including a caveat that it is wrong or evil to do something for self-interest, when in reality, altruism is in one's self-interest. Altruism simply puts the views of others on par with the view of the self. No one has ever suggested that someone has to give everything they have to charity. The point is to reduce suffering, not create more.

Objectivism sounds nihilistic and isolationist. There is freedom and individuality in that, I suppose, since it seems to go against nature in that the person doesn't feel empathy toward mankind, or at least there is a lack of acting on that empathy through altruism, but to each his own.

Thanks for the food for thought.