Ayn Rand is the antithesis, in the best Hegellian sense, of the dictate that 'every thesis creates its own antithesis'. She is the exact antithesis of Lenin, c. 1919, as described in her vision of it in "We the Living", which was her very best novel. The characters in it are vastly better than the cardboard people in her other books, especially "Atlas Shrugged".
If humans are social beings, like meerkats or chimps or apes, then we are social beings, and are best when our governments reflect a more socially dictated structure. On the other hand, if we only band together in times of sheer adversity, like wolves, then something like Libertarianism should work best.
Communism has worked better in China than in the USSR, and the main reason seems to be that China has a much longer history of being unified under a similar culture than the hugely diverse population of the USSR.
The most prosperous Communist society to date, at least so far, was that of East Germany. Again, it was a homogenous population with limited diversity. What led to the downfall of East Germany was the even greater success of West Germany. Of course, it is doubtful that Marx would have approved of a domestic spy system like the Stasi.
Eventually, China will catch up with East Germany's record.
It seems that a limited Socialist organization, such as that of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan eventually will result in a more prosperous and equitable society in the Chinese culture.
None of these countries could be described as libertarian in the least.
I don't expect the Libertarian movement to get much farther than the Anarchist movement.
Perhaps if Alaska, the Yukon or the Canadian NWT were separate nations, it might work there-sort of. Of course, distributing Alaska's oil wealth among the citizens on an equal basis is hardly Libertarian.
