Ayn Rand did not ignore the role of the Enlightenment in the founding of the US, she stated it explicitly many times. But she did not base her own philosophical principles on Enlightenment philosophers, particularly in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She credited Aristotle (and aspects of Aquinas to the extent he was consistent with Aristotle) as her only philosophical influence, but regarded the Enlightenment as essentially Aristotelian.

From the Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 5 December 3, 1973, "America's Philosophic Origin", by Leonard Peikoff:

"[T]he United States is the nation of the Enlightenment. The progression of European thought from Aquinas through Locke and Newton, represents more than four hundred years of stumbling, tortuous, prodigious effort to secularize the Western mind, i.e., to liberate man from the medieval shackles. It was the build-up toward a climax: the eighteenth century, the Age of Enlightenment. For the first time in modern history, an authentic respect for reason became the mark of an entire culture; the trend that had been implicit in the centuries-long crusade of a handful of innovators, now swept the West explicitly, reaching and inspiring educated men in every field. Reason, for so long the wave of the future, had become the animating force of the present. For the first time since the high point of classical civilization, thinkers regarded the acceptance of reason as uncontroversial. They regarded the exercise of man's intellect not as a sin to be proscribed, or as a handmaiden to be tolerated, or even as a breath-taking discovery to be treated gingerly—but as virtue, as the norm, the to-be-expected ...."

"Aristotle provided the foundation, but he did not know how to implement it politically. In the modern world—under the influence of the pervasive new spirit—a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men, the one with the greatest direct influence on America, was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers was the social implementation of the regnant Aristotelianism; it became the base of the new nation's distinctive institutions."...

But -- "John Locke—widely regarded during the Enlightenment as Europe's leading philosopher, taken as the definitive spokesman for reason and the new science—is a representative case in point. The philosophy of this spokesman is a contradictory mixture, part Aristotelian, part Christian, part Cartesian, part skeptic—in short, an eclectic shambles all but openly inviting any Berkeley or Hume in the vicinity to rip it into shreds...."

For more on Ayn Rand's philosophy versus Locke's see her comments in the section on "Axiomatic Concepts" in the appendix on the epistemology workshops in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Locke in his 1970s course on the History of Western Philosophy.

You don't have to and should not stop thinking and applying ideas. That does not justify anyone misrepresenting Ayn Rand's philosophy as whatever else they want it to be. "Objectivism" is the proper name she gave to her philosophy. Euclid did no such thing -- and we don't have "libertarian" and religious "geometers" running around contradicting Euclid's geometry in his name. The basic reasoning and conclusions of Euclid are still Euclidean geometry.

I surmise that "the Kingdom of Rand" (or God) is within you.
One-day-at-a-time (or one-step-at-a-time) is how growth and change happen.
Ayn (bless her heart) was SO advanced of a human being that she couldn't wait for the populace to catch up with her ideas.
She thought of people as being ...well... A-1 or A-0.
In many ways she was (and is) truly remarkable in her ability to cut between soul and spirit. She had no apparent patience to abide evolution of thought for us who are mere mortals.
The mere fact that 30+ years after her death there are those of us who are catching up to her thoughts is a testimony to the mind of mere mortal man.

I disagree. Libertarian philosophers took huge short cuts, but they intended it to be a philosophy, sprung from the so-called scottish "Enlightenment."
Regardless of how self-identified libertarians believe, there is a philosophy behind the movement that was not just meant to be political. That it is only political is just a reality.

Libertarianism is not a philosophy, it is a set of political beliefs and only a set of political beliefs. So it’s no surprise that it “lacks foundations that are essential to a philosophy of life.” That’s also true for any other set of political beliefs. Since libertarianism is not a metaphysical or epistemological system, it cannot hold that “objective reality cannot be derived from reason.” I doubt that you would find many libertarians who agree with that statement. As for religion, a recent poll of its members by the Libertarian Party found that 39% answered “none” when asked to state their religion. You can survey “leading Libertarian philosophers” and find a multitude of viewpoints, but since libertarianism is not a comprehensive philosophy there are no “libertarian philosophers” as such – there are only philosophers of many persuasions whose political outlook happens to be libertarian.

If libertarianism is a political ideology, then its "basics and consequences" exist entirely in the political realm. Regardless of their other philosophical beliefs, libertarians favor private property, free markets and social liberty. Period. How does this conflict with Objectivism?

While I would never want to misrepresent Ayn
Rand's philosophy, I think I disagree with her on
some minor points; so I cannot swear that she
would consider me a true Objectivist. If the movie
of "Atlas Shrugged" had been more competently
done, it might inspire more people to read the
book, and that might help to spread it.

I think a time might come when most people
in the country will call themselves Objectivists,
and the quarrels and snobbery will be between
and among people who dispute about who and
who are not "true" Objectivists.

The problems are myriad. Voting, not as much. Though Rand and von Mises had a cordial relationship, there are huge philosophical differences. Just as with Os and conservatism. Ultimately, libertarian philosophy lacks foundations that are essential to a philosophy of life and one key tenet of libertarianism holds that objective reality cannot be derived from reason. Further, the underpinnings behind that view by leading Libertarian philosophers is based in religion. The dissonance is pretty big, no?

While I can easily see that all libertarians are not objectivists. It certainly seems to me that objectivists would fall within the broad spectrum of political opinion called libertarian.

Euclidean geometry is not what Eucild said it was, it was any idea consistent with the underlying principles. If we restrict objectivism to what Rand said, then it is dead and is reduced to a history project.

For Rand and others to ignore that objectivism is derived from the Enlightenment is dishonest and hurts objectivism. Rand loved the US, because of the intellectual foundations on which it was based. Where did those intellectual foundations come from? Blank out?

"... some libertarians are also Objectivists ..." If they are truthfully examining the basics and the consequences, they cannot be both. Besides, it seems to me that libertarianism is a political ideology, not quite thoroughly consistent and Objectivism is a philosophy. Don't you think?

Objectivists are not libertarians. There are two many contradictions Reason, for one

But philosophy is not life. It is a guide to life. There are so many other things in life that are worth conscious and dedicated effort. I would never expect a unanimous, knowledgeable and thorough understanding of philosophy in any community of humans. You can see plenty of evidence in this Gulch.

That was what I was driving towards.

If you perceive incremental improvements, your children will perceive more of them and your grandchildren even more. And those people are the only "extensions" of your life available to you. Your scientific and artistic contributions are not in fact extensions of your life. They are just that: contributions you made and traded to improve your life.

Just my ideas.

I will quote to you the axiomatic concepts at the base of the Objectivist philosophy: existence, identity and consciousness. They are irreducible primaries. They translate into axioms: "existence exists", "consciousness is conscious", and "a thing is itself". The entire philosophy flows from that base. Mind you, I am quoting what I learned. These are not my own discoveries.

If you cannot understand these concepts, you do not belong here, I think. Can I ask you: what is your purpose in participating in the Gulch? Please, be honest in your answer.

Among the families I have worked with to try to end medical tyranny Objectivism is an easy sell. They get it.

Brandon Again.
When he set up NBI, he hat the advantage of the newly published soft cover edition of Atlas into which he put a flyer advertising NBI. That format, was pretty much what I outlined and it was very successful. It only fell apart when the Rand/Branden relationship fell apart. Had that not happened, I think Objectivism might well be a national movement.+

There was another reason that I put quotation marks around "become popular". If Objectivism were to "become popular" (as in trendy), I seriously doubt that many claiming to having adopted Objectivism would be sufficiently rigorous in their thinking. This would lead to a dilution that I know I would find unacceptable. Based on the high percentage of proven producers in Atlantis is AS, I think Ayn Rand would agree. The "all or nothing" approach that Rand took preserved the quality of the philosophy. I think she made the correct decision.

Didn't the Libertarian Party already try this approach? Ayn Rand was none too happy about it.

I agree that such a philosophy replacement would take longer than we have. Given that, should any investment be put forth in that philosophical replacement? If one who puts forth such an effort cannot live long enough to see its fruits, by Objectivist reasoning, is such an effort worthwhile? One would live long enough to see incremental improvements in the culture, but is that enough?

Did I make it sound like I thought atheism was a philosophy or that it led to the philosophy rather that the reverse. I'm sorry if my point was so mis-understandable. But I thought I was as clear as mud.