Selfishness is not the ultimate virtue, the non-aggression principle is as close to the ultimate virtue as we've got.
That said, she probably turned quite a few people away from libertarianism by doing stuff like you mentioned.
Very fair of you to acknowledge her flaw on that, but I'd say it had little effect sadly.
Those who would be turned off by that were likely already turned off to libertarianism's rationalizations for callousness to human needs.
And those who were attracted to that system could turn a blind eye to her flaws.
I'm not sure anyone changed their position to oppose Libertarianism over her flaws.
Nor should they, really. If a proponent for a good set of principles is a bit of a monster, then that doesn't really invalidate the principles.
Communism's flaws aren't bad because Karl Marx neglected his family terribly.
Fascim isn't a bad system because of personal flaws of Mussolini or Hitler or Franco. It's because of flaws in the system.
It's more simply to not hold Rand up as someone really to admire and listen to personally as far as that goes and to recognize some connection between her flaws and the system, just as Nazism was in no small part connected with some of Hitler's personal flaws, Libertarianism is to too much of an extent a rationalization for sociopathic polices.
Which suits sociopathic interests like the ultra-wealthy's selfish interests and corporate power just fine.
At the end of the day, Libertarianism is highly anti- American to the extent that Americanism involves a sense of common societal interests and obligations and democratic principles, the artifical equality of 'one man one vote' to counter the concentrating effects of wealth disparities resulting in a few having all the power, to the extent that Americanism follows principles such as the saying you can judge a society by how it cares for the least in it.
America was founded as opposition to excessive privilige of wealth and power, an elite class of few who took from the many for their own benefit.
Here's the basic flaw of Libertarniasm as it relates to Americanism IMO:
The problems with a few telling the many, 'you're going to give excessive of amounts to us for us to use for our benefit, and you have no say', are countered by the idea of saying 'no, the many each are entitles to one equal vote to everyone else, and the policies of the society - what wealth is taken for whom - requires the consent of the people, poor or rich'.
In the case of the United States, wealth and power were combined in the government of England. Those with the money also had the political power. One and the same.
The United Stated made a different kind of government - one intended to be selected by the people and to serve the people more than the one made of the wealthy.
The flaw in Libertarniasm on this is to pretend that the elected government of the United States is just as bad for the people as the one of England - while it ignores the power of wealth. So Libertarniasm generally seeks to recreate the abuse of the concentrated power of few England had, with blind support for the wealthy, while making the elected government intended to serve and prtect the people into something that's evil and the threat to the people, crippling the power of the power to elect a government that can protect it from the wealthy class.
In other words, Libertarianism would recreate the tyranny American was created to prevent.
Now, Libertarianism says lots of things to try to claim they disagree with the above and claim no, it's great for the poor person, it gives them lots of rights to get rich, and the law will give them all kinds of protections to sue the powerful who violate their rights, but it's a lot of nonsense and would merely enable plutocracy and tyranny if allowed.
Libertarniam twists American principles, twists nuggets of truth, into lies by exaggeration and misapplying. The healthy concerns about excessive governmental powers that America was founded on are twisted into hyper-opposition to the government's powers to protect the people from the contentrated wealth and power of the few - who resemble the old English rulers.
Libertarianism is filled with creating a system that would harm most people and blame them for it.
America and Democracy too often fall short on these things - wealth corrupting our elections and government, corporations being legally turned into people allowed to misuse their massive wealth to defeat the will of the people, for example - but at least they're flaws, not the core principles as with Libertarianism.
There's a reason why figures like the Kochs, who are all in favor of plutocracy, are so drawn to Libertarianism - duping poor saps into following it with promises of freedom.
Save234