I see your point, it's hard to get people behind your movement of their going to start misrepresenting your platform. Then they bring others in and so on until you've essentially been hijacked or splintered.

It's essential to keep things simple, and the non-aggression pact needs to be the only basis to both let the majority in and keep personal differences out.

Capitalism is merely the society-wide application of the idea of self-ownership, and its implications upon the material world (material property).

If the pursuit and acquisition of wealth is the defining property of the worth of a man as Rand claims, then money becomes the idol of worship of Rand's philosophy. Idolatry has existed since the dawn of man, it is merely the identification of objects as the targets of veneration in philosophy, where the Christian ethos claims to venerate a being rather than an object.

Question: how does one value "man's life" as in Rand's claim if the only tool she acknowledges is money? If religious morality does not enter into the picture at some point, would not then a man's value terminate at death - regardless of his productivity during life? Without a valuation that supercedes monetary assets, death ultimately renders all actions in life moot, does it not?

Rand's observations about capitalism being the best method for wealth creation in society are accurate, but her denial of a moral responsibility to guide in the acquisition of wealth is completely undermined by the actions of the characters she chooses to employ. Her characters refuse to murder or steal or lie to accomplish their goals. Why? If wealth acquisition is the end game, why are these off limits?

In reality, Rand does acknowledge that there is morality which accompanies the pursuit of wealth, she just doesn't want to label or acknowledge it as such. (It's also the reason why Galt's interminable speech at the end of the book goes on longer than a politician's bloviation during an acceptance speech.) Thus to me, her philosophy is incomplete. She identifies some truths, but lacks the larger context.

I would also point out that your example of the murderer-for-hire is actually entirely consistent with capitalism. It is the morality of the transaction that is at question: the value to both parties clearly exists - it just comes at the expense of a third. But that's what happens when I choose one washing machine brand over another, is it not? Of course I take the example to the absurd end, but I do it to show that the example is bad - there is nothing in capitalism that guarantees no harm to a third party during a transaction. It is rather a matter of valuing one product or service over another, but it does come at a cost to the one not chosen, does it not? Is that not the concept of a superior product or service? The reason none of Rand's characters employ murder isn't because they wouldn't like to get rid of the idiots, but simply because they believe that on a level playing field their superior products/services would prevail and elimination of the competition in any way other than in the marketplace would not be a true measure of the value of their products/services - a just recompense of their opponents' inferior production.