The problem to me of objectivism is it leaves out half the argument, that of subjectivism. Some things can be described well as the interactions of discrete objects. Other things can be best described as subjects. For example you can construct a system based on people as individuals, and you can also construct one based on the people as a whole, or subject. Each one leaves out part of the available information. If we say one is more important than the other then we can't complain if our simplification leads to gaps in understanding.
Much of economics deals with waves of events that cannot be easily described by objects as discrete things. For example the stock market moves in waves that cannot be explained by looking at individuals as shareholders. You can try but in many cases surges of exuberance (bulls) and panic (bears) happen because people take account of what others are doing instead of the facts.
Likewise economies can be altered by waves of opimisim or pessimism. Even today if everyone decided to be super motivated the economy would be out of trouble in a year, but this is a wave phenomenon. Democrats concern themselves with subjects and these wave like trends, Republicans champion the individual. When Republicans get into power the wave like aspects get out of control leading to booms and busts because they don't try to control that aspect of things. Likewise when Democrats are in power they ignore things like what individuals can do, so things can stagnate.
A good example is regulation. Democrats tend to ignore the individual getting caught in red tape and Republicans that no regulations can turn orderly business into a looting mob. The answer seem to lie in a see saw of alternating objectivism and subjectism with the voters evaluating when it's time for a change. When one side messes up the other too much that losing side get more motivated to vote and the government changes.
In terms of personal philosophy I think objectivism misses out too much of what is going on to be used by itself. it can be useful if you thoroughly understand that aspect and then try to understand it opposite. That way you can follow all sides of an argument.
You say you want to follow a philosphy of lving without fear as individuals. This in a way though relegates the concept of mass fear as something to avoid rather than understand and control. In a left wing society there is little fear because of safety nets, and wave like effect such as a surge of unemployment, bank failures, changes in international trade, are reduced in their strength because of these baffles and nets. When you don't have any of them picking a bank or an employer becomes more a fearful situation because the wrong move can be disastrous. If this goes too far those same safet nets and baffles snare you when you want to accomplish something. A net can catch you when you fall and ensnare you like a fish. A net has a dual effect, you use a net when you need it and put them away when you don't. It has holes to let the individual through in some ways and lines to catch them in others.
It's like in Taoism, the Yin and Yang of life. The left wing is yang and the right wing is yin. Objectivism is Yin, and the Tao lies in the middle way, like middle of the road government. People have been trying to describe everything as one or another since the time of Confucius and not succeeded.