I posted this on McCaskey's site, which will probably get deleted.
Following the highest established standards of logic, the most rigorous canonical reasoning, any logic professor can decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture. It took the Harvard professor Robert Nozick only a few paragraphs.
But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down.
This always cracks me up. Rand was such a compelling writer that even a person untrained in philosophy can understand her. But to really understand her you have to know some sort of Objectivist "super logic." So even if you have a Ph.D. in philosophy you can't intelligently critique her.
The best critique of Rand's ethics is Eric Mack's "Problematic Arguments in Randian Ethics," Journal of Ayn Rand Studies,
vol.5 no. 1 (Fall 2003) pp.1-66.