What she needed, was humility enough to listen to those who disagreed with her ideas: there are some gaping holes in her supposedly "objective" philosophy.
For example, what kind of "objective" philosophy could possibly state that "the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life?"
Happiness as defined by whom?
And who but a childless person could suggest that "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake....?"
Sorry; I lost interest in Rand's philosophy when it became evident that it was based on something other than reason. I strongly suspect that her personal atheism was the driving force behind most of what she said and did.
Now I see where you are coming from. I didn't read Rand's statement so narrowly. If the quote were changed to: "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others against his will" would that be more acceptable? I think that is the meaning implied in the book.
Like many folks, she offers criticism but really no solution. Her proposals are practically unworkable. And I agree with you that her atheism, free love, and childlessness are probably at the bottom of it somewhere. I've never seen another book (purporting to be realism - plenty of scifi/fantasy of course) in which children were so conspicuously absent.
Still, there is great value in the criticism. "The Road to Serfdom" doesn't offer any solutions, either.