I find it interesting how many ex-JWs are attracted to Rand's writings. I have a good friend who left the org and became attracted to her philosophy. I think there is something elemental in her philosophy that is very empowering to some ex-JWs. I find that since the Witnesses are a religion that supresses the individual to an unhealthy degree, those escaping that stranglehold are naturally attracted to a philosophy that pushes unbridled individualism.
Yet most contemporary philosophers and academic departments don't take Rand very seriously, and for good reason. She was a mediocre writer, and an even more facile philosopher. Her philosophy is based off of a simplistic ethical egoism that doesn't take into account the complexities of living in a society. She confuses ambition and responsibility with ego-driven self-interest, and her main argument poses a false dichotomy between the individual and the collective. And despite her comments in the interview quoted by botchtowersociety, the results of such ethical egoism can be seen in the worst excesses of American capitalism (see the recent Wall Street crisis for an example).
If one wants an empowering individualism without the simplistic social-political overtones, then go with the original: Nietzsche. Then graduate to 20th century existentialists like Sartre and Camus, who had more profound things to say about responsiblity, the individual, and his/her role in society.