A huge mistake that many people, including virtually all of the participants in this thread made when considering Rand's philosophy is to focus solely on her political conclusions. You guys obsess over politics while never checking the metaphysical and epistemological premises from which you derive your political conclusions. Politics is only one (and in my opinion, the least interesting) of the five branches of Objectivist philosophy.
Consider Rand's aesthetics, or her theory of art. Have you noticed how utterly worthless modern art is? Painters slather canvases with unintellible, formless smears of color and call it abstract art. Another kind of "artist" assembles random scraps of junk into bizarre formations for nothing more than the purpose of wierding out the viewer. Musicians of all generes compose songs which "sound good" but which either have no slightest meaning at all, or have such corrupt meanings that they compel teenages to commit suicide. Rand rejects all this and says that art should have meaning and clarity--that it should actually represent some idea and some value judgement. What's wrong with that?