I have read some of her reasons for saying she is not a Libertarian, and I consider them to be trivial hair-splitting, motivated primarily by the fact that she was incapable of respecting anyone who disagreed with her about anything. There are more differences between the various Libertarians she lumps together than there is between her and all of them. Everyone was for her either an acolyte or an enemy, there was no room for colleagues who agreed to disagree. Colin Wilson once told me of a conversation he had with her where he tried to compare and contrast their ideas. She considered the fact that he disagreed with her on a few points to be a personal insult, and refused to speak to him ever again. The same thing happened to Hospers, who had been one of her most loyal followers for years.

I haven’t read everything she’s ever written, but I’ve certainly read more of her work than she has read of Kant or Aristotle. I don’t have any plans on reading any more. What I have to say about her is in the essay and lecture connected to the two links I gave you earlier. If you want to hear anything more I have to say on her, you can follow up those.