I am beginning to wonder of ANY of these people have read a single Objectivist book. I cannot vouch for Rand as the most sane person (I would think she was most likely a mild schizophreniac), but her philosophy is far from mad. Another thing, there is no such thing as selfishness harming others--harming people is not good for anyone, even you people know what, and is most certainly not selfish.

In 1971, professor of philosophy William O'Neill published the first book-length critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy, known as Objectivism. (Albert Ellis's 1968, IS OBJECTIVISM A RELIGION?, was a discussion of Rand and psychology, from what I recall.) This book isn't bad, but it has been superseded as a critique of Objectivism by Robbins's work (ANSWER TO AYN RAND, which has been updated as WITHOUT A PRAYER) and Scott Ryan's recently released OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY.

O'Neill's discussion of Rand's thought is informative and more or less accurate. On the other hand, he doesn't make enough of an effort to integrate Rand's thought into a coherent whole (granted, this isn't easy to do). So I don't think that someone new to Ayn Rand would understand why Rand has influenced so many people. Yet O'Neill does do a good job at bringing to light of some of the contradictions in Rand's work. For example, Rand preached that compromise was evil; yet she supported candidates for president who were anything but Objectivists. However, some of the alleged contradictions Prof. O'Neill finds would disappear if he had used a bit more "charity" in interpreting Rand.

If you want to read a sympathetic integration of Rand's thought, I recommend Chris Sciabarra's AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

O'Neill delivered a concise academic and philosophical critique of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's work.

His work was informed by an exhaustive survey of objectivist literature. He left no stone unturned either in giving Rand the benefit of the doubt or in pinning down the definitions Rand herself or other Objectivists gave to the terms they used.

He makes no extreme claims about objectivism. The book is an analysis, not a polemic.

Albert Ellis' book, _Is Objectivism a Religion?_ is a good companion to this book. Both books have ramifications for libertarianism and even for the somewhat reified and theological capitalism that dominates America politically. This is because the same inconsistencies and factual errors that the objectivists are guilty of permeate libertarianism and the debunked but still influential economic theories like supply-side or Austrian economics that have political power long after working economists despaired of finding any practical use for them.