Quote from Cutten:
Adultery is breaking your word, and intentionally initiating emotional distress against 1 or more innocent people. Definitely not compatible with objectivism.
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.
Smoking is basically destroying your health, looks, and hygiene, as well as harming others via passive smoking. Definitely not compatible with objectivism.
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).
Homosexuality has existed since as long as humans have, so it cannot be called abnormal. And being abnormal is not wrong, if you are not harming others. In any case, she did not call it abnormal, her words were much more harsh. Judging people on their group identity is collectivist, the exact opposite of objectivism.
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.
Judging people purely by their sex is also collectivist. There are woman who are stronger than some men, for example. Or smarter, or better leaders.
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.
). 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.