Basically it's leave me alone and leave my stuff alone.

Well the establishment parties have shifted as well since Ayn’s era.
The “Right” used to be about imposing morality on people. Remember the “Moral Majority”?
The “Left” was about staying in your own lane. And freedom of choice.
The corporatists are playing both ends against the middle as they always have. But the middle is shrinking. Like a funnel. They’re going to have to pick a side sooner or later.
The parties have swapped ends. I can see it in the clueless gerontocracy (boomers) that sees the WOKE morality being imposed and they don’t realize that THEY VOTED THAT IN.

Crony capitalism is phony capitalism

I agree. I notice a certain pervasive snarkiness on this forum. A lot of smart people with bad social skills, perhaps?

I have read her work. Don't agree with everything she says. Like I would say about many people other than her.

I'm personally not anti-big business. Am anti-abortion, and don't believe she had things right on religion either.

However, I believe we can agree to disagree.

Agree with her on abortion and big business is unavoidable in a free enterprise society. I neither like nor dislike it.

No, the SCOTUS has not said anything yet although the deep state controlled media want you to be distracted by this to gather votes.
If the SCOTUS do reverse Roe v Wade, it will only return the control of the issue to the states and the people, as the US Constitution intended.
With respect, I do understand your concerns.
All governments pursue power and individuals must act to limit that power. The more powerful the government, the greater the danger. No government can be trusted to keep you safe.
Don't let the media stoke your fears. You are a rational thinking person who must not be manipulated by fear into actually giving away your freedom for false political promises.

It does sounds trollish. I just thought the discussions would be different than what they are if people were here because of their familiarity with her works.

My youngest child had a form of dyslexia as it pertained to mathematics. He was also an auditory learner.

Are you saying (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just to make sure I understand) that the involvement of the government in these complexes you've named makes them not legitimate capitalism? In other words, there is no real free market in these areas?

I got a few A's for performance and U's for attitude, too, because I knew that I knew more than the elementary school teachers even then. ... and got paddled for it in Beaumont, TX (knowing that I would). Being the non-conformist was worth it. The teacher I remember had made three mistakes of 9 + 9 or less in two days.

Pardon me but I think a man trying to understand anything about abortion equates to a woman trying to explain prostatitis!

In times past in Brazoria County Texas it was said people didn't bow to God, they bowed to Dow! Well, they built an entire city which is a very nice place to visit. I wouldn't want to live there. My father, like everyone else worked for Dow at one time and we lived of all places at a place called Camp Chemical. I started Kindergarten there and my report card was marked 'Inclined to Mischief!'

This question, at first glance, just looks like a troll. Of course people here have read Ayn Rand. Abortion is a debate that will never be solved.

What Ayn Rand clearly wasn't in favor of is something a famous trader calls "Govopoly". Atlas Shrugged is all about that. I'm not in favor of the social media government complex. It's terrible. As is the pharma-government complex. These things aren't legit business. There corrupt and destructive. One has to be able to differentiate between these and legit capitalism.

I think this is the best description of her views I've seen on here. I think in her writings she took some of her views to an extreme that is not workable in practice. Perhaps that was her intention. But it sounds like you've taken her basic premises and made them workable. Unfortunately, I don't think most people feel benevolent any more, if they ever did.

I'm assuming (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that "the other side" is the left. But the right are who are trying to erode individual rights. In one fell swoop, SCOTUS is declaring that there is no right to privacy, which means that the government can justify any intrusion into your personal life that they want. I'm more afraid of that than pretty much anything else. I really just wish everyone would stay out of everyone else's business.

I think Rand would agree with that.

Good question. I would think so, but the end result is the same I suppose.

“I don't agree with her basic idea that selfishness is a virtue.”
I think selfishness has two definitions. People commonly use “selfish” to mean dishonest. If you purposely trick an employee into providing something and you don’t pay him or if the employee takes the pay but doesn’t provide the work as agreed, people might call that “selfish”. That is not what Rand means, as least by my reading of it. I think she’s would call it selfish (in a good way) to fire an employee you don’t need anymore or for an employee to quit a job because he found a better one. The alternative to this selfishness is for the employer or employee to stay together because one feels sorry for the other, because they think it’s a virtue to be selfless, or because people with guns will come and take their stuff in the act of enforcing laws based on selflessness. People are motivated to create things either because it’s what is best for themselves or because they think it’s best for others. Working for your own interests is like working for money while working for others is a form of slavery. The Francisco d’Anconia money speech explains it way better.

I think Rand intentionally used a word that commonly means dishonest because she really believed in living for herself and she was not willing to surrender a word that starts with “self” to mean something opposite of what she believes in.

People don’t want a customer, employer, romantic interest, etc to stay with them out of pity. They want selfish (in Rand’s sense) arrangements that work for both parties.

I found the book Virtue of Selfishness easy to read, and I recommend it if you haven’t already gotten to it.

“I was really just kind of curious what draws people here when they don't seem to agree with her ideas.”
I have no idea. The vocal fans of Rand seem to interpret it exactly the opposite of my reading of Rand in almost every way, from the obsession with reactions from others, focus on politics, focus on groups over individuals, fantastical conspiratorial thinking, mean-spiritedness, to the rejection of facts and reason. I think it would do a lot of good for the world if somehow people could be introduced to the books without knowing about the nasty fanbase associated with them.

Is there a difference between active cronyism (lobbying and looting) and deriving an indirect benefit from such action?

Check your premises and control your fear.
I think a rational observer finds varied rational conclusions depending on the evidence and varied experiences.
Anti-corruption, pro individual liberty, pro free markets are a common thread, imo.

These days there is only one side for any reasoned person. There is no "you stay out of my rights and I'll stay out of yours" anymore. The other side isn't talking about natural rights, mutual respect and the boundary of others and the state into your life, they talk of compliance and forced acceptance. "Live and let live", "I'm okay, your okay" no longer exist to more than half the country as they gleefully tear down the Bill of Rights to enforce their dictates.

At this juncture we're not splitting hairs over preserving natural rights. That other side gets both barrels should they "choose" to come.

What we are seeing isn't business. We are seeing force at work on a huge scale masked as business and masked as government.
I've read several of Rand's works but by no means consider myself an authority.

Rand's philosophy is a life/living ideology. Once Mitosis occurs within the female it is no longer the host genetically and has its own existence (it own unique DNA). Murder being force....

When my 38 year old cousin was born at 26 weeks of pregnancy, she was only 1.5 pounds, at that time the record smallest in Florida history. The doctors said that she would likely have numerous problems long term (which she didn't) and had a life expectancy of 30. I saw her mom and grandma this past weekend for the first time in over a year. The mom was recommended to abort my cousin because of the likelihood of complications.

Going through something like that puts a little perspective on the issue.

I agree with you in premise. I do not like abortion, but I do not in general want to extinguish choice. However, I do not agree with third trimester abortions at all The only caveat I will say is that doctors in conjunction with patients should handle the exception choices in a personal dialogue that only extends to them.