I’m very curious as to what you would say if that was the case. I don’t know about LeoPTY but I know many who are new to Objectivism think like that.
I personally have some issues with not living up to my own ideals, and I simply cannot accept anything less…
About the simplest way that I can put it is: As you turn away from the burdens of other people, you turn more attention to your own work.
Now that’s that, right?! 
Not quite…
(I’m going to focus on a range or subset of transformation types e.g. some people who were never religious would have slightly different circumstances…)
A number of considerations come into play. For one thing, even if someone claims to leave behind a failed philosophy, there can easily be a lot of “baggage” to deal with. It takes several years to start to learn and implement Objectivism (as would likely be the case with any other substantial philosophy.) It also takes time to move away from framing Objectivism in terms of the old philosophy and moving to a stage of treating Objectivism on its own terms. This is crucial!!! For example, I suspect that many new Objectivists still would at least implicitly consider the idea of perfection as other ideologies such as the religious ones do. They are still hampered by some old premises. In turn, they might think that Objectivism is impractical when the case is that they are misinterpreting the philosophy in ways that are similar to how the critics of Objectivism have. By the way, I tend to think that people really don’t believe in a new idea until they have worked their way through it over an extended period of time in terms of their own respective life. That is, there’s a huge difference in personalizing the application of a new idea…
Here’s a hypothetical to illustrate the point:
Let’s say that I get the idea to emulate a virtuoso guitarist. I might initially have some apparently good reasons for this. I might want to sound better. I might want to have an easier time navigating the fretboard. I might want to play more interesting material. I might want to prepare for a professional career. Sounds encouraging, right? The thing is that I can not simply wake up the next day and implement _anything_ to make the requisite objectives fall into place that day. I have to take steps. I don’t mean that I have to just follow a sequence. I also have to break down the stages of development into even smaller sections as tasks. Also, I have to spiral intellectually and mechanically. That is, for one thing, I have to sometimes backtrack and do “old work” i.e. review recently completed tasks. There’s yet more…
Let me interject by saying that Objectivist intellectuals are themselves addressing these issues by way of their own division of labor. What Ayn Rand did was to literally lay down the basic framework or foundation of Objectivism. It takes and will continue to take the efforts of other people such as Jean Moroney and Tara Smith to address more specific issues presuming that their students are already familiar with the basics of the philosophy. (I am speaking of the times when these people are teaching Objectivists; they also teach for more philosophically general audiences.)
Another impinging aspect is that such a person in this situation is likely to have to leave behind social metaphysics i.e. that person will not only have to learn new ideas, but he will have to depend primarily on his own mind and his own efforts to work through this new paradigm. Fortunately, as I just alluded to, there are more intellectuals aside from A.R. who this person can consult with. (Here’s an endorsement for ARI’s conferences.) To jump a bit, Objectivists do need to utilize some of the same methods as their philosophical competitors have used. We need to pool our resources at times, consult with each other, and build elements of a community. Still, the point is that, this student needs to train himself to be more intellectually self-reliant. That is, he has to condition himself to trust himself, consider himself to have the final say over his own beliefs (after supporting his claims), and he has to be steadfast in the knowledge he’s since gained. Another example, I explicitly became atheist over 2 decades ago. Does that have a direct impact on anyone else? Nope. At the same time, do I need to “reinvent the wheel” every day, month, or decade by constantly challenging my metaphysical beliefs? Nope. I have satisfied my own claims to my own satisfaction, and so long as I don’t encounter truly contradictory information I have every motive to retain those beliefs.
There’s so much more, but I would remind you that the Objectivist cliches are true. Along those lines: To work for the future is to live in it today… You are your own “God” i.e. you master your own destiny… You make your best efforts and leave it at that. (Re-read what John Galt says in _A.S._ if for no other reason than to get more motivated!)
It’s difficult to operate differently from most people with the intention of bringing about a different type of world and not get dissuaded or discouraged by opponents _at times_. Even this doesn’t mean resorting to baseless fantasy. After all, the American Founding Fathers did it; that is, they persevered! There are many of the same travails in forging a 2nd renaissance, but there are some inherent advantages as well. You can look back at history and see that the world that you want is good, it’s achievable, and “it’s yours”.