I am happy to see that there is another person who appreciates Rand on here.
Anyways as I said earlier, I share Robert Kane's view on free will. Here is a wiki that might describe it with a bit more clarification:
Robert Kane (philosopher) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
His definition of free will is to be "the ultimate creator and sustainer of one's own ends or purposes." Of course, the being must be rational and not be coerced or have no compulsion. The fact is, there is no definite answer to whether free will exists or not. There isn't even a definite answer as to whether free will is compatible with determinism. However, the significance is where Kane won me over. Without free will at all there is no reason for moral responsibility. There is also no impulse for dignity, which is how we gain our self-esteem. The point is, we drown in nihilism when we don't believe in any free will. The idea of meaningless existence is so irrational and pointless. It is pointless because then there is no drive to run on except one's own feelings and emotional whims.
As for the significance of compatibility, I say that there is no compatibility. I didn't read all of Kane's book, (I only read the first half for research for my paper) and someone probably came up with the same conclusion as me. The reason I believe that there is no compatibility is because I believe that it is irrational to believe in compatibility at all. It is irrational because then one is not keeping it simple. Look at how some defend evolution or the non-existence of a god. They use Occam's razor to say that it would be pointless to "pick and choose" what irrational things to believe in. So in the case of free will, in order to be consistent and not "pick and choose," you must be an incompatibilist for free will.
I have not made up my mind on exactly where it exists, so don't ask me that. However, Kane does address the question in the second half of his book.
On the issue of objective reality, for what reason would you want to believe in subjective reality? Logic is the best we have and to just shy away and not trust it is absurd. If you don't believe in objective reality then why do you go on living? Also, Rand's metaphysical position is what I would use, but I am sure you have heard it before.