Yes, people seek their own happiness, but what happiness in life is and what happens when our desires and aspirations conflict with those of other people are complicated questions that deserve more study than she gives them. Rand was right about the central ethical/political question of the 20th Century (as were other people who approached the question from other directions): coercive collectivism is not the ethical/political ideal. But others have come up with better and deeper answers to the less ideological question of what we should do with our lives.
What brought me to Objectivism is my inability to understand why people like Nelson Rockefeller, who had more money than he could spend in three lifetimes, supported collectivism even though it was intent on taking his money away (If you want to know the answer to that, e-mail me).
That's not so hard a question. The collectivism that they support doesn't advocate taking all their money or other satisfactions. It's not a question of all or nothing for someone like Rockefeller. Moreover, if we had as much money as Rockefeller had we could lose half of it and still have much.
It is not 'happiness' that is Rand's highest good.
(Forgive me for repeating this *yet* again, but . . .)
Consider the man who is happiest eating cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner. He is acting *against* his own self interest and long-term happiness (destroying his health).
I'm really surprised, how can such a simple thing be so widely misunderstood?
Really? You must be very busy to have met, counted and catalogued all the millions who have studied philosophy! What a heroic sophist you are!