Of course not. In the same way, numerous catholic priests molesting children, and having it covered up by the church authorities, does not invalidate the teachings of the bible or the catholic church. However, both call into serious question the character of those who preach, run the catholic church, or run for elected office from Chicago. Given that most people accept arguments based on the reputation, charisma, or perceived authority of those making them, rather than on the arguments themselves, then presenting the apparent hypocrisy of these people who like to lecture others might serve as a wake-up all, or at least stimulate some more critical examination of their ideas.
I don't know what her wedding vows were, but both Rand and her partner received consent from there respective spouses before beginning their affair. The negative health effects of smoking were not known for most of Rand's life. Regardless, there is no reason why potentially self destructive behavior is incompatible with Objectivism, so long as an individual derives a rational happiness from that behavior (and causes no harm to others). Rand called it disgusting, and I am sure she had her reasons for feeling that way. But she would agree with you that it is an individual's choice. To quote Rand: "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." I imagine Rand viewed homosexuality as irrational more than anything else. Why would a person deny their nature to seek sexual fulfillment from a partner not biologically designed to give it. Neither Rand personally, nor Objectivists in general, would disagree that women can be/are the intellectual or political equivalent of men. Look at Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. Rand's sexism only related to the sexual relationship between men and women. Rand believed that woman should feel no shame in enjoying the sexual dominance of a worthy male partner. I think Rand derives this idea from the natural history of the human animal, wherein the most powerful, successful hunter/gatherer would have his way with the most fertile, healthy female. Anyway, even if Rand lived a life completely at odds with the tenets of Objectivism, it would in no way take away from the ideas espoused in her writings. The ideals of freedom, individuality and capitalism had few better proponents than Rand in the 20th century, IMO.
Second hand smoke? You do seem to know enough about her, whereas all I did was read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her "philosophy" struck me as two-dimensional extremism best suited to cartoon situations. I suspect that her "philosophy" was something of a knee-jerk reaction to her repulsion towards communism. I think both extremes fall flat in the real world. The solution to one extreme is rarely the opposite extreme. Communism would never work in the real world because it blunts ambition and initiative. However, human achievement and economic progress are predicated on ambition and initiative. Similarly, laissez-faire capitalism cannot exist in a vacuum as she describes it, because of the way that the real world seems to work. If she really believed it could, then she should have packed her bags and moved to any number of Third World countries, where she would see for herself how the world works without any checks and balances. Unless a theory or "philosophy" reasonably accounts for real-world human behavior, it dies on the vine.
The dangers of second hand smoke were not known until relatively recently. Who knows what Rand would have thought about that issue. Third world countries do not represent true capitalism, at least as Rand defined it. Third world countries offer little legal protection of private property or recourse against violence and fraud, all requisite for true capitalism. I agree with you that Rand was a bit of a two dimensional ideologue, not to say that she wasn't right about alot of things. Personally, I prefer the more pragmatic political/economic philosophy of Milton Friedman when it comes to the defense of capitalism.
All very good points (especially the parts where you agree with me ). But true laissez-faire capitalism, as implied by Rand, would inevitably result in monopolism and other anti-competitive practices that would come at the expense of the consumer and other well-intentioned enterprises. (Look at the examples offered by history.) Also, we have seen how a lack of regulation can truly muck things up, where de facto fraud can often pass for incompetence. That's not to say I favor a "central planning committee." However, surely there is a middle ground. I wish that John Kenneth Galbraith were alive so that he could chime in.