This philosopher's error is here:

"The fallacy that is at the heart of Rand’s political-economic philosophy is the fallacy of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition...But in truth the entrepreneur, though very much a necessary condition for the production of economic value, is not a sufficient condition...Thus the creators, entrepreneurs, investors, taxpayers, legislators, jurists, workers, and consumers are all necessary conditions for the production of the value that we find in the marketplace; but none of them, including the entrepreneur, is a sufficient condition: none can make it happen alone."

First, I despise the backhanded way in which modern philosophers insult each other. By claiming Rand is making an error of elementary logic, he is indirectly insulting her intellect and philosophical ability. Critique the argument not the arguer.

"I see that Rand does not tolerate the philosopher’s patient tarrying with differing points of view but moves in quickly for the rhetorical kill. She seems to be moved by a passion — the libido dominandi, the desire for control — far more than by the gentle art of thinking."

Yes, Rand wrote differently than most contemporary philosophers. Her style was aimed at rhetorically asserting what she saw as true. Disagreeing with style doesn't mean content is wrong though.

Second off, this critique is based on a flawed premise: that the producer's contribution is non-unique in the same way all the other contributions labeled above are non-unique. Yes, the producer can't complete the work with out the contribution of workers, but the workers can be replaced by other non-unique workers. Without the producer, there is no work to be done at all. That is the premise the argument fails to acknowledge.

I get it -- without the rest of the universe (grass, trees, rocks, planets, suns) -- the businessman is "helpless."
(Context Dropping error)

". . . flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy by Paul Kidder" --
You must be Kidding, Mr. Kidder .

I think it's funny that the author says the entrepreneur needs 'a government agency in charge of a budget to finance his or her ideas' in order to accomplish their goals.

Does Paul Kidder not realize that this is what Ayn Rand wanted to rid men of in the first place?