I'm not an objectivist but I must correct some of your criticisms of Objectivism in "Weclome to the Founders College". First the idea of her "limited" axiomatic philosophy. You are assuming that there is some definable whole to which she is limiting her philosophy. In other words, that her philosophy is a subset of something. So, define what that something is in real terms! Her axioms are simply reality. Nothing more or less. Is there something else? Tell me what it is because I'd love to point it out to Objectivists!

Second, the idea that rational self-interest contradicts the ideal of free-market capitalism is baseless and, frankly, absurd! The fact that participants benefit mutually in free-trade is the result of self-interest. Participants are never motivated to help each other. In proper functioning free-trade, participants may appear to be helping each other by looking at them through a socialist filter but they simply are not.

... in the political realm, rational self interest leads to bigger government ...

You're committing one of Ayn Rand's major fallacies. You applying self-interest to one group (politicians) out of context. Yes, politicians are corrupt due to self-interest. It has however, nothing to do Ayn Rand's philosophy. Trust me Bush is/was not an Objectivist yet he and most Congressmen are corrupt. The reason politicians are corrupt is because the citizens allow them to be corrupt. We elected them and continue to elect them. This is irrational! Rational thought acknowledges that gov't officials are corrupt due to self interest and advocates eliminating their authority. Therefore, rational self-interest leads to the elimination of government (other than defense) because the rationally self-interested public ceases to sanction their authority.

-chris bladon