While obviously descriptions of political philosophies are as complex as you want to make them but if you are going to boil them down to a single distinction then the left vs right line is by far the most significant, I would say. The problem is that people think it’s arbitrary and they don’t realize what it means. At it’s core it’s about the belief in the value and ability of regular people. If you think regular people are generally able and trustworthy you are somewhere on the left and if you don’t you are somewhere on the right. What could be more fundamental in a (human) philosophy than it’s view of human nature?
I know little about Rand but someone who does could apply this standard to her and answer the OP’s question. As for libertarianism, it’s on the left. It trusts people to make their own way. Individual American libertarians seem to tend to lean either Democratic or Republican based on whether they value freedom on social issues or economic issues more.
It’s entirely possible to admire certain qualities about a person, while being revolted by other qualities. People do it every day. And if someone asks you what you admire about the person, you’ll list his admirable qualities. It’s quite a logical leap to conclude you admire the other qualities as well.
There is no way that Ayn Rand was a sociopath. Yes, she challenged many values of society, but not out of hatred for humanity. Rather, she wanted humanity to be free of its restraints (like religion), and for people to learn how to be rational and productive and free. That is not what a sociopath wants.
Ayn Rand did not object to regulations (unlike Libertarians). One may be a capitalist and believe it is efficient for allocating resources simultaneously.
To be correct you would have to parse the word “like” into a contortion. You don’t know enough about her and my views to do such.
As far as the differences in Objectivism and the LP - that would be one.
Capitalists like regulations since they help preserve capital.
I don’t need a cite, you do. Capitalism and individual liberty cannot exist without law. I am not talking about a bureaucracy. If one is a capitalist they also honor law and private property. Laws are regulations. One cannot espouse capitalism and chaos together.
“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”
The thing is, modern conservatives/libertarians disregard the putative wishes of Rand and/or the onetime cult, that Objectivism apply to everything, and indeed take your much more reasonable (heh) approach of “unbundling” the person, the theories and the applications.
Plus in the case of many of the conservatives they may not have really read much by her beside the two big novels, and precious little *about *her, so it may not even register.
Unfortunately Rand DID allow a cult to arise, as locked in to the notion that she had found THE answer and that the “prophet” was endowed with infallibility not just on the subject at hand but on matters of life in general, as any founders of a religion. Why did she not stop that? Did she think that was the rational, right thing to do? Not sociopathic, then, but narcissistic, maybe? Her use of the justification of “rationality” for a lot of the non-admirable actions (e.g. Branden) or even trifling things suggests to me that she welcomed or expected that her followers buy into her position on anything and everything as a single indivisible package, so opponents feel in turn justified to return the favor in kind (fairly or unfairly).