I evaded no question by imputing greed, and your whole flat earth description was an insult that had no necessary legitimate purpose with regard to anything said, other than to purely insult.
As I see it, kindness in a general sense may or may not be a good. When viewing it as a good (which I usually do), it is only a good ethically speaking, where it is not required by expectation or law. The instant it is granted a higher ethical standing, it then become required by expectation and thereby looses part, if not all of the ethical aspects of its good and thereby begins to fall into an unethical category.
In this regard, kindness is an opposite of lets say honesty, where an increased expectation and duty, takes nothing from its ethical standing.
I explained the flat earth slur when I made it. Your most recent post confirms that indeed, Randism has a flat earth problem as regards the ethical theory. Please don't take it personally.
First, I do not call for be-kind laws. I want to understand the essence of kindness. This is central to any ethical theory. Rand does nothing to explain it, she either defines it away as a form of selfishness, or points to the well-known difficulty of discerning true kindness.
Granted, some acts of purported kindness have ulterior motivation; granted, laws that enforce kindness are silly and defeat the purpose. Now, what does Rand have to say about genuine kindness?
Note that I did not bring kindness into a discussion of unrelated stuff as an evasive maneuvre. I claim that Rand has nothing useful to say on ethics and kindness is a central ethical concept.