Premises 2-4 in your sticky are fallacious or contain non-sequiturs.
1.
>Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Granted, although technically any models in your mind are subjective.
2
>Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
How about instinct that is learned or biological? Shared sentimentality is another basic tool or strategy for survival, the same as reason.
3
>Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
It doesn't follow that my highest purpose in life is to be as selfish as I want. Perhaps I would feel happier sacrificing myself for a worthy cause?
Q: Selfishness is objectively speaking, the highest purpose for all according to who?
A: Ayn Rand.
4
>The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.
So when an unfortunate and indebted persons have no choice but to sell their bodies to labor if they are to survive, Ayn Rand doesn't think they're slaves, or there is an oppressor? She thinks they should still feel happy because they're equals? I feel like she's plagiarizing another philosopher in the 2nd setence rather poorly, and coming to the opposite conclusion. I think his name was Karl Marx.
>It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.
Sounds utopian, and history has not endeared itself to good behavior under laissez-faire.
>In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Granted, but only because full capitalism is by definition a separation between state and economy. The argument doesn't do a good job of proving laissez-faire is a better economic system, or refuting arguments for a less extreme system of "do-nothing" management.