She would sacrifice voluntary interaction over her definition of "rational" interaction.
Also, selfishness is bad. Now, I don't think that selfishness should be outlawed, but it is not something to be praised, as she does.
This is not to be confused with self-interest, the foundation of voluntary agreements in a free market. I could be completely selfless yet still act with self-interest.
Semantics arguments like this and other misconceptions of terms are what attract many libertarians (not this one) to objectivism, and what lead many critics of libertarianism to falsely attribute objectivism to libertarianism, when they are not related. I actually think that the two isms butt heads more than they align philosophically.
