A "classic liberal," sure. That's just another term for libertarian. The libertarian philosophy is not monolithic. Some of us think Ayn Rand described the perfect society; I don't. But she believed in severely limiting the power of government, having more faith in the ability of people to run their own lives, and putting up with the consequences of their failures because those consequences will be less onerous than the day-in day-out consequences of too-big-for-its-britches government. So that puts us both in the libertarian corner. There are extremists on the left as there are anywhere else. The communists (are any of them still around?) do indeed smirk at the mere liberals for not going far enough. Nonetheless, in American politics and many other countries, "left" is synonymous with "liberal" and "right" is synonymous with "conservative." We libertarians call them "left-liberals" to clarify the distinction between them and us classic liberals. A good portion of the libertarian community is smitten with her. She certainly is one of the luminaries in the movement. Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises, there are half a dozen historical figures who are counted as the first libertarians or the people who gave the movement direction, even if the movement didn't yet exist in their lifetimes. I liked her books. Very thought-provoking stories. Greatness is something that is often thrust upon people rather than achieved by actual leadership, so I suppose she is great just because so many people think she is. But if she meant her stories to be blueprints for the future then I think she was a little naive, a little cold-hearted, and a lot cynical. We call that wing of the movement "anarcho-libertarianism." The rest of us are called "small-government libertarians" just to distinguish us from the anarchists. However, the libertarian philosophy does not advocate the complete elimination of government, only its shrinkage. The anarchist wing is a fringe that is out of tune with the movement's philosophy, or perhaps that wants to change it in ways that the majority of us won't approve.
From what I have gathered, her personal philosophies were just a little self-centered, so I think the cold-hearted and cynical part is probably applicable. I've heard of Ludwig von Mises, but know next to nothing about him. The father of Austrian economics? I'll do some looking. Thomas Jefferson: oft-quoted by the constitutionalist/patriot movement. He is neglected by establishment mouthpieces who claim to defend American values yet do more than anyone to actually destroy what they say they are protecting. Treasonous bastards! Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't libertarianism in it's purest form be anarchy, with complete state control it's polar opposite? I have seen it displayed that way on the some ideological charts. It kind of makes sense with the two poles representing 100% government and 0% government. Not that it matters much, since very few people advocate that, which makes a special label "anarcho-libertarianism" appropriate to distinguish it. Back when Ron Paul (considered by many to be libertarian, or at least leaning that way.. I know some would say he is not, but the definitions themselves are open to debate!) was running, I came across a YouTube video of a young anarchist denigrating him. My immediate impression was of someone who seemed unduly angry, seething even, in a manner I found to be strange, as if it were some type of propaganda ploy... exaggerated outrage, if you will. I didn't find him convincing at all. I found it highly annoying rather than enlightening. It sounded like some uninformed propaganda is all I can describe it as. You state that they are out of tune with regular libertarians. Judging by the guy I saw in the video, would it be untruthful to say that some of them are "off their rockers"?!?!? I just think it's unrealistic. Your thoughts on anarchists? A funny description for a YouTube video (was looking for the video with the silly anarchist, but couldn't find it) "NeoCon for Ron" - Why Neoconservatives should back Ron Paul Sponsor: NotFatAnymore.com - Is it "neoconservative" to spend ourselves into military collapse? How will we bomb things if we can't buy the bombs ... Funny!
As an atheist, Ayn Rand would be appalled by anyone viewing her as a deity. There are those (very few in number) who think highly of her, including myself. I do not think there are many (if any) that come close to worship. Most have a very dim view of her philosophy. Many are vehemently opposed to her ideas. I think this is due to one or more of the following. To understand her ideas requires about the amount of effort involved in getting a good grade in a one semester college course. Few are willing to voluntarily spend that much time on any subject. She let it be known that she was an atheist. This is often enough for some to disregard a person's other views without taking any time to examine them. Her views are very obviously opposed to the altruist ethics espoused by Christianity and by most of those in the academic community. Many intelligent people are turned off as soon as they recognize that her views are so contrary to the altruist ethic. Her views are easy prey to simple sound bite counter arguments. BTW: This is a major problem in our modern culture. Sound bites are very effective in supporting views, while a real understanding of political or economic concepts requires careful study & analysis of data. I think that many (perhaps most) of her views would be accepted by anyone who took the time necessary to understanding them.
