I think that Rand's philosophy works well for individuals finding separate identity and independence, because we all need to do that at some point. I find it useful for adolescents who are trying to find their individual identity out of the many ideas and philosophies thrown at them, which is completely necessary.
The problem would be to mindlessly accept HER philosophies on everything and apply them with a broad stroke to every situation.
Politically, individualism only works to a degree. We have to work and exist as a society, albeit with some necessary concession to individuality and individual rights. No one gets to be a rugged individualist in every situation, and certainly, we can't all go off and make laws only to suit ourselves or our small group of people who happen to have a few common goals without coming into constant conflict with another group who has their own desire to have the same, law and rule that suits only them.
Consensus is required to exist somewhat peacefully outside of individual constructs...such as marriage or clubs, or even government, although the right to dissent and peacefully and systematically change law must also exist, of course.
We had that for thousands of years, each little tribe wanting what other one's had, and different rules and laws, and we were constantly at war with each other, apparently.
Some degree of peace requires a degree of consensus and concession that I don't really find in Rand's philosophies about what is best for the individual.
It could be said that the rights of the individual are always going to be somewhat at odds with the rights of the majority. If someone can find a form of government by consensus, or in other words, democracy that fully gives each individual their rights in every situation, I've love to hear about it.
I'm sure there have been some fancy dissertations written about how the right of the individual must sometimes, judiciously bow to the right of the majority, and how, at times, the right of the few must also prevail.
Hopefully, a process of government can have enough flexibility built into it that it accomodates both when necessary.
Hell even Star Trek has that "needs of the one sometimes outweigh the needs of the many" idea bandied about....and it's true, sometimes, a minority has such a pressing constitutional right to amend an injustice or to conform to Constitutionality that it supercedes the right of the majority. Slavery for example, and, also female sufferage, the right to vote.
Everything I know about life, I learned from TV shows, actually. *G*
