And sadly, this causes no shortage of morons to go after her personally, and discuss her emptiness, rather than discussing the smart things she said. Interesting, isn't it?
Some people discuss people...
others discuss events...
and still others discuss ideas.
Eleanor Roosevelt uttered something along those lines. Lets discuss her sexuality and her public disagreement with Francis Joseph Spellman, the Catholic Archbishop of New York! Juicy!
If the highest apostle of a philosophy violates same at every turn ... what are we to make of both the philosopher and her philosophy?
In the end, the self-contradictory nature of Rand's philosophy shines forth in her own wretched behavior. Look at the hypocritical dynamics -- they were oh, so Objectivist about it -- of her affair with Nathaniel Branden. (You can read about it in Barbara Branden's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, for example.)
But really, that's about what one would expect of a philosophy like Rand's Objectivism, which is not even logically self-consistent.
There is no shortage of morons who worship her, that is for sure.
She read Murray Rothbard out of her immediate circle for marrying "a believer" when she could not dissuade him from doing so even though he was then still an atheist. So much for freedom of thought or to marry.
She did not think much of Nathaniel Branden's marriage either. Rand was an outspoken advocate of the necessity of acting on one's beliefs. She did.
Eleanor Roosevelt was simply a more honest enemy of Western Civilization and apparently a lesbian (in her old age) whereas no one familiar with La Rand denies that she was a straight "consumer" of the husbands of other women. In doing so, Rand also despised the freedom to contract marriage while being imagined some sort of libertarian.
Note that this post discusses a person (La Rand), her behavior (serial adultery) which consists of events and the emptiness and juvenile nature of her ideas.