Atlas Shrugged has it's finer points and I think it's well written. Her ideas, in my reading of it, are only valuable in the sense that they provide a basis for people to hone their own conceptions of the world whether they agree with aspects of objectivism or vehemently oppose them.
Her ideas, in my reading of it, are only valuable in the sense that they provide a basis for people to hone their own conceptions of the world whether they agree with aspects of objectivism or vehemently oppose them.
Personally, I feel it's just too long for that. Basically, you can read LeVay, and a decent chunk of Nietzsche, Friedman Milton, and Robert Nozick, get a some good exposure to her ideas and go further in depth, and still read way less. I don't disagree with all of her ideas, but individualism can only go so far before it becomes disillusion, and the idea of "redistribution of wealth" becomes more complicated when you consider it costs more overall to provide no social services, and when you consider that people are greedy and just aren't freely giving enough to elevate society to a level to allow to function so much better, the basis of her economics approach becomes shattered. And it does look really weak when you spend so much time and effort condemning the poor and bemoaning social welfare only to stick your hand out for some later on because of your own personal choice to ignore the warnings that your habit is going to wreck your health and likely even directly kill you.