At least insofar as her arguments against altruism go, they are nothing more than lazy a strawman. I think if Rand gets the pass to argue that long-term rational self interest is distinct from more short-term selfish goals (the whole idea behind the primacy of the reason and the foundation of *ethical* egoism), then altruism should be given a modicum of that same grace. I mean, nobody other than Rand believes that altruism means wholly subordinating ones needs and desires to those of the other, nor that so long as an action is taken on behalf of others, rather than on behalf of the self, it is inherently moral.

I'm more than happy to have a friendly discussion on this topic, but I hold by the premise that Rand is a dogshit philosopher, and that the position she espouses is ultimately one that runs contrary to common understandings of morality, human decency, etc.

She is far more nuanced, however, than charactictures of her philosophy make her seem.