There's also the fact that he's treating Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher instead of a base political propagandist.

Read John Rawls first work, read Ayn Rand. See the parrallels yourselves. Only the first one was acknowledge by the establishment, while the second one was not.

Interestingly, they process more or less the same way, and come to very similar conclusions.

I don't need a chocolate medal given by the government to an author to decide whether it is worth reading or not. If you do, and if you hate libertarianism, read about Rawls. The guy received a medal from Clinton - that's as liberal as it gets.

You mistakenly believe the political spectrum stops at "big government worshiping liberals". I'm a freaking socialist, I'll abolish your private property as soon as look at you.