Doesn't that pretty much amount to Rothbardian Libertarian? (minus his weirdness about children)
Nah, he never got into the philosophy thing. (Not for real anyway) Rothbard couldn't get into the metaphysics and epistemology of it all. Most of his arguments are based on practical economic assessments, and what is most efficient, which is great, and he was correct about all of his shit, but he couldn't explain jack shit about the nature of reality and why he knew what he knew.
Rand's work in epistemology and concept formation is the shizznit.
Her failures are even gold, really. Almost all of the stuff that Successors like Molyneux and I guess Roderick Long and a couple other cats have come up with are mostly refinements on her mistakes.
Particularly Molyneux. Rand's ethics were kinda for shit. The Molyneux stuff is basically Objectivism with a better grasp of ethics. He admits to that openly.
Rand's ethical system had a lot of "Bad people hate good people for being good, so if bad people hate you you're doing something right."
Which is circular logic, because I can run down the street pissing on legs like a giant douche and people will hate me too.
Her other big point was "There's no difference between the moral and the practical." which is pretty good but still wide of the mark.
If I recall correctly she was also big on the golden rule, which is as busted as fuck. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." doesn't bode well for the world when there are misanthropes with suicidal self hatred in existence.
Most of Rothbard's ethical arguments are off the shelf natural rights stuff. Nothing bad about it, just... He dabbled in ethics rather than focused on it.