What is so terribly wrong with Objectivism? To begin, it's so-called "axiom of existence" which says that existence exists is  outright false. That's right: "existence" doesn't exist anymore than "life" lives. You live, I live, the birds in the trees all live, but life doesn't.  Why doesn't it? for the simple reason that Life is a creation of the human mind, and exists only in the human mind. An abstraction, in other words? Not even that. It is, to be precise, what Aristotle called a topic  (the Greek word having been topos, which literally means place).  Thus in the sense meant here, a topos or a topic is a place in which we humans might put things we wish to categorize as "living."   Therefore, the particular things, (birds, trees, rabbits, virus,  and so on) which we put into the topos or place we call "life" are all living, that place itself, in which we put them, is not.  That is to say, again, living things live, but life does not.
The same can be said about existence. Living things, and inanimate things now as well, exist. We prove this by pointing to them, and describing their properties (e.g., John is tall).  But we can do no such thing with existence because existence has no properties. It has no properties because it has no existence of its own, save as a topic or topos or place in human discourse.  That is to say, existence most definitely does not exist. What is more, Aristotle never said  it did---  for the simple reason that he was too intelligent to ever say anything so ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because if you think about it, you'll realize it's flat out wrong. That is to say, you exist, I exist, the universe exists--- but existence doesn't exist. This is because as even Rand herself admits elsewhere in her writings, only concretes exist. And existence is clearly not a concrete, because you cannot ascribe any specific properties to it.  As I've already indicated, it's merely a kind of floating abstraction--- more precisely, a topos or topic or place) that outside of a specific context, quite literally means nothing. Thus, since "existence" out of context means nothing, to say out of any specific context that  "existence exists" is to efectively say that nothing exists--- a most extreme form  of a view generally known as nihilism.


     Since Rand herself claimed that her entire philosophy of Objectivism was based on this supposed "axiom" which we have now proved to be false, it might be argued that we have refuted Objectivism in its entirety.  But we have no intentions of stopping here. That would be too easy, and not very much fun. Delving into the details of Ayn Rand's nonsense about capitalism, ethics, metaphysics, and so forth, however, is great fun. In time, as we further develop this website, we will do more and more of that.
         But wasn't Ayn Rand the ultimate champion of freedom and human rights?  Anyone who thinks she was should read the biographies written about her. The one Barbara Branden in particular clearly demonstrates that Rand, in her own personal life, was basically a tyrant.
    But what is  so terribly wrong with Rand's notion of "rational self interest?" To begin, the notion is inherently irrational. It claims that in my seeking of my own selfish best interests, I need to (unselfishly!) allow other to do the same. Hence, to be "rationally selfish" I need to be unselfish. That, gentle reader, is nothing more and nothing less than a contradiction.