It may be a bit late to get my two cents in, but here is the pennies anyhow.
Ayn Rand was a genius. Like most geniuses however, she was a little bit crazy, and, also like most geniuses, she was just socially different enough in her mannerisms and speech that she probably always stood out in among people who were of less intellectual prowess.
This fact combined with Rand's upbringing in Russia (and anyone can testify to the fact that traumas as a child cause some of the most jarring elements of our personality as an adult), her love for the freedoms of the United States and perhaps that she was raised in a time when she did not have a lot of female role models lead Rand to conclude that radical Capitolism was supreme and women were only hero worshippers.
While Rand would have denied that society had shaped her that way, it would seem that her development as an adult was driven primarily from these events as a child.
As a thinker, Rand was exceptional. As a philosopher (and a female one at that), she was a revolutionary. And, finally, let us hope the above article is correct. If more businessmen adapt Rand's moral principals, then we'll see less Enrons and more CostCos. An innovative store with competent management, a knowledgeable and well paid work force that also makes a killing in profit. People may harp Rand all they want, but Dagny Taggart would have felt nothing but disgust for the "looters" who lined their pockets in dough while purposely causing rolling black-outs and hiding behind their government friends to make the whole thing seem legal. In fact, the majority of Atlas Shrugged is about how such people are, for lack of a better term, evil.

Most people tend to ignore Rand's first novel: We the Living. It's by far the most "human" of her works and, despite being set in Communist Russia, the least political. To me, the greatest irony of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it shares as its core the very core of Karl Marx's philosophy - namely, that man is essentially "good" by nature (as opposed to a Hobbsien view) and is corrupted by prevailing social norms which, in Rand's view, restrict man's individualism and, in Marx's view, restrict man's altruism. Both views are overly simplistic, so of course both philosophies are skewed. Rand and Marx were like two wanderers starting from the same "first step" then traveling in opposite directions. I saw Ayn Rand in person many years ago when she "spoke" in DC (I think it was at the Shoreham). Of course, Nathaniel Brandon did almost all the speaking, and Rand only spoke a few minutes at the end of the presentation. Brandon was a dynamic speaker (in the motivational mode), but struck me as a bit sleazy. I would have loved to have heard more from Rand herself. Whatever else might be said of her and her ideas, she was an interesting personality - even when she announced on a Tonight Show interview (I think it was with Johnny Carson) that "automobiles don't pollute." That may have to be her epitaph.

Nathaniel Branden, Ms Rand"s associate/lover Confides in his book, Judgment Day, that she was a user of Amphetamines. Amphetamines induce exhilarating feelings of power, strength, energy, self-assertion, focus and enhanced motivation. The need to sleep or eat is diminished. The release of dopamine typically induces a sense of aroused euphoria which may last several hours: unlike cocaine, amphetamine is not readily broken down by the body. Feelings are intensified. The user may feel he can take on the world.

It all sounds like the attributes of Ms Rand"s heroes.

Good thing people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez were around to show us just how full of shit Rand was.

I've been astonished over the years to have friends and acquaintances, otherwise good and reasonable people, buy into Rand's garbage.

Yep, just what the world needs. More Americans being MORE selfish.

Ayn Rand was a powerful thinker. She was somewhat of a victim of her precious capitalism as economic theory and moral standard. Her capitalism was polluted before it even got started. Let's face it, our economy is stacks of government regulations, corporate influence, and demands of the electorate. When somebody calls for "free market" they are always trying to add something or amend something to tilt the playing field in their favor. Or they have the bully position and want to use it.

The title "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" of 40 years ago really stated her quandary. It was also the first substantive appearance of Alan Greenspan. It always seemed such a contradiction that a laissez faire capitalist like Greenspan would go on to run the most quasi-governmentally invasive construct manipulating the financial and monetary systems of the country????

An long ago ex-fan of hers... like any ideologue she had some great thoughts.... but they were moot because of the practices in reality.

One thing positive to say, and you may not like the tenets of her philosophy... but I think she would have taken Bush and his fellow thugs to the woodshed for just about every single scheme they have pulled off.

"Collectivist social structures that allow for a great deal of personal evolution, creativity, technological innovation, and personal decision-making while also leveling the playing field and allowing for proactive long-term planning in tune with the natural world are probably the best hope for humanity's future."

a claim echoed down through the ages of brutalality and carnage... from the witch doctor and Atilla the Hun ... as individuals were burned at the stake for thinking for themselves

"Individualist" philosophies get alot of appeal because most collective social structures, i.e. government, religion, school, etc. are very obviously set up to preserve the power of the ruling classes and not actually aid people in evolving and creating a better life for themselves.

Rugged individualism also strokes the pervasive, yet illusory, notion of a free will or an individual consciousness separate from the world.

Collectivist social structures that allow for a great deal of personal evolution, creativity, technological innovation, and personal decision-making while also leveling the playing field and allowing for proactive long-term planning in tune with the natural world are probably the best hope for humanity's future.

As the divide grows between the salaries of corporate CEO's and workers, we see what the disciples of Ayn Rand seem to have missed. The empoyees of Reardon Steel and Danconia Industries were well paid and content. Reardon and Danconia were smart enough to realize that their people needed to be compensated justly. Today, we have globalization, and allowed to naturally progress, the divide between the white collars and the blue collars will keep growing until we end up in an Orwell book where the middle class is eliminated and revolution becomes inevitable.

Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are the Flagship novels for the Individual cast into the role of outsider by a bland, imagination-less hive. Another good read along those lines is Oscar Wilde's, " The Soul of Man Under Socialism". There is much to be said for that style of thinking. On the other hand, ego's obcession with the individual is a monument to selfishness and greed.
There is also much to be said for Socialism and the collective.
In my view, the model of a symphony orchestra works best, where the symphony is only as good as the individual players and both co-exist harmoniously.
I call it Quantumism. America is actually a Quantumist society.
The Police, the Post Office, the Fire Departments are all socialist and work fine.
I don't see hordes of opressed pesants storming the Library. Yet, individualy owned business thrives as well. In my vew, the key is to keep necessities collective and make anything else available for individual investment and creative use.
There really is no conflict once people figure it out.

For those who haven't read it, Atlas Shrugged is a quite immature novel in glorification of greed. It even has a heroic pirate. Piracy is fine if one is rich enough to afford a ship equipped for it, and has the right philosophy.
It claims to be about freedom, but the freedom to use ones wealth, power, and talent in any way her chooses. Since there is more wealth and power around than there is wealthy talent (Come now, you know that the poor never get a chance to develop their talent without help.), this is nothing but Neoliberalism at its most cut throat. A good example of where it leads is the administration of George W. Bush.
It is a good way to shipwreck a nation.

Objectivists are just as crazy as Scientologists - and perhaps even more dangerous. (Heard of any Scientologists in any Administrations lately?)

Randism is just a mixture of fascism and libertarianism. I am a libertarian myself.
I just realize that I can't be free in a Randist
world. Under Rand rules the rich will oppress the poor and neither rich or poor will be free.

In a free society you would have neither rich nor poor. I am open to suggestions for an economic system that can do that. I think energy [horsepower] backed money is one element that is needed.

Fiat money and commodity money is a way of enslaving people. Energy can't be cornered or hoarded like Gold. If there is not enough, you can generate some and get the cash you need.

Well, that certainly answers a lot of questions.

If there ever was a body of work that was a series of manuals for sociopathy, it is the body of work of Ayn Rand. There are some fascinating accounts of her "inner circle" of toadies and sycophants, back in the 50's and 60's, out there, one of which was Alan Greenspan. Truly a bizarre bunch.

For more on just what a Bull Goose Loony she was, I suggest this, part 1 of her appearance on the Phil Donohue Show:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pRDgIXn2IWs

A real charmer, that Ayn.

Ayn Rand's Capitalism is no different in it's ideology than what is the practice of Satanism, a complete focus on the individual above all others. THIS IS THE KOOL AID. It supports a completely Karnalistic, self indulgent ideology that a man/woman is only worth what he is able to produce. Capitalism is great in a competitive and regulated society, but it is a complete failure to the needs of Humanity when it is corrupted and abused by those who seek to abandon the fair and competitive requirements necessary. Capitalism's natural end without regulation and competitive fairness is one megalomaniac holding all the marbles, well guess what, we are trending towards the establishment of a global financial system that's purpose is to be all encompassing. Ayn Rand and her brood of self-worshipping Satanists need to be identified for their weakness of ego, greed and pride as an amoralistic disease in our government and society. Her books also include Capitalism and The Fountainhead, both speak to the disfunction of the mentality of individual greed and selffish, self-centered perversion of a meaningful life.

Gore Vidal described its philosophy as "nearly perfect in its immorality."

Nuff said!