As you must be aware, many smart people disagree with you about Rand, and can back it up with something better than a youtube video. And anyway, you said her philosophy contains certain flaws. That doesn't imply it's not valuable and useful overall, so even if I concede your points, it's not very important. The reasons I like Rand have nothing to do with "axiom of reflexivity of identity" or that other stuff you said.

edit: no online sources? I don't normally pay $35+ because a hostile, anonymous internet commenter said something would refute someone I respect but didn't want to explain the ideas himself.

You asked for a source: I provided one. A request for an explanation is something else. I'll give you another source instead: http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/Mike.Shor/courses/GTheory/do...

As for $35, it pains me to mention libraries...it was a source, with a link so that you could see something about the book.

I can't say I know of a single public intellectual or professional philosopher who takes Rand seriously. I do know of a well-regarded mathematical logician who does, but this is an aberration.

>I can't say I know of a single public intellectual

Alan Greenspan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html).

Clarence Thomas (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180289132).

your new source is basics, not new results. i just wanted an interesting paper on new results to read. those are normally published online.

your ignorance of public intellectuals and professional philosophers is not an argument against Rand. lol.

No professional philosophers take Rand seriously, except for a couple whackos in a couple places.

I understand if your 15 how exciting Rand can be. But to see adults take it seriously is sad.