This article runs into several of the issues that plague Rand in general.

First, it rails against the option of living as a parasite. But parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy, and there's no rational reason any given human being should avoid choosing it. Indeed, it makes much more sense for an average person to prefer a system that allows them to engage in a certain amount of "parasitism" than it does for them to support a system where they are left at the mercy of the handful of people at one end of the IQ bell curve.

Second, it treats "individual thought" as the primary method of man's survival rather than the much better candidate of "social conditioning". You may have to think hard about how to eat and what to eat if you are trapped alone on a desert island, but in real life most people are guided into jobs that earn them money they can go to spend at the supermarket, where the poisonous berries have already been screened out.

Third, it presupposes that there is an objective psychological thing called a "human being" with a fixed nature. But people are wildly varied and, well, not as collective as Rand ironically assumes. So you get statements such as "you can't find happiness in procrastination, promiscuity, or pot", which is laughable given how many people find real enjoyment in those things.

Basically, while Rand is very interesting in that she lays out her premises very clearly and straightforwardly, in a way that few other philosophers dare to do, she ends up falling prey to the fact that she is writing in reaction to her communist upbringing, and so therefore ends up basically accepting a communist framework. She becomes a mirror image of Marx, agreeing that society is defined by a class struggle, only siding with the other class. But the Marxist framework is inherently flawed and reductive, and cannot be saved merely by flipping it.