Rand is not helpful in promoting freedom because it creates confusion about what should be the right values of voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists. Because it's easy to confuse objectivism/egoism as being adjacent to vol/ancap.

In Rand's system there is no value besides the self. In her view charity is immoral because it is placing something above the only true moral, the self.

This can lead some, including some ancaps themselves, to think that the ancap model is pure selfishness if people mistake Ayn Rand as being a useful thinker in the ancap space.

The better vol/ancap view is that all values are important but that government or any power structure that isn't voluntary will always pursue them impurely. And that only the self can serve real values through direct human will and action. A healthy anarcho-capitalist community is composed of people who are not psychopaths and posses full social and emotional development.

Ancapistan probably can't be made from emotionally broken people like Ayn Rand who have lived through any communism. It might not even be possible if most of the people had an institutionalized childhood being raised in public schools. Those people are too mis-developed.

This is why even as an ancap I do recognize there is some pipe-dreamism involved. For me it is a social and moral ideal. Practically it takes the highest developed sort and ceases to work with enough of the wrong sort. It assumes a population that is universally above 100 IQ, doesn't have a reflex to violate the NAP, is self governing and considers the externalities of their actions themselves, and everyone cares enough about philosophy to have a pretty deep understanding of right and wrong for themselves and doesn't require a central body to dictate that for them.

That's just not the population we have. Even among whites it's hard to get those characteristics universally. And the world is getting less and less white. Where would a black who cannot self govern for shit and will just automatically steal everything fit into ancapistan? Not that I want to express myself as a supremacist over many of you, but I really think ancapistan is only possible with a purely Scandinavian population. Anarcho-capitalism is basically the system they had in antiquity. Even when there was eventually a king of Norway that king had no real control or say over the day to day lives of anyone. The king was a purely military power that just offset someone else declaring themselves king (and unfortunately there were some taxes/tribute involved from the population). But the king had no real governing power.

So we know that anarcho capitalism does work with Scandinavians because they have done it. But that's a population that has a high degree of empathy, sense of fairness, and a very uniform high intellegence.

This is also why I am a eugenicist. I think having ancapistan eventually is morally requisite. So I care if our laws, which I view as being immoral to begin with, also happen to have a dysgenic result further pushing us away from that necessary goal. I have absolutely no problem requiring people to be sterilized to receive welfare.

But to me this is the central problem with egoism in the context of freedom:

If doing what you want to do or what is good for you is inherently morally right and no claims from any other form of morality could supersede that morality.. why not become a tax collector? That would lead to good outcomes for you right? Then why not do that if there is no morality besides the self?

The politician is an egoist. If you want to see what system egoism actually gives you look to every flawed power structure ever to exist. The egoist thinks they are a freedom absolutist when they have no power and their want happens to be to want others to have less authority over them. But granted different circumstances the same moral principles gives you a government maximalist who has zero shame about corruption.

So my view is that society and being human does come with some moral claims on you. But it's your job to sort that out instead of the government. The government will see harms where someone has committed none. To the degree pure capitalism "leads to those with power oppressing and exploiting those with less power" government will only officiate and license it.

To the extent that any of us have the capacity to wrongly exploit others we have a responsibility not to do so. We have a responsibility to show kindness and respect to those less fortunate that us if we are decent people. That's for us to sort of individually. And if we do have a tendency to try to exploit others, government should not be there to reinforce and require relationships that shouldn't have to exist.