At the risk of being more understood than usual...

The modern libertarian movement in the US seems to have had it start at about the same time that Ayn Rand was having the most impact. She may have been instrumental in this or she may have just be reflecting the zeitgeist of the time. This is unimportant. What is important is that her ideas and those of a similar nature from others "caught on".

She is mentioned frequently because her books are more accessible than others being novels (and a movie) and are still being read. Now there have been many other ideological movements but most of them haven't lasted. I could cite Henry George and Edward Bellamy as examples from the late 19th and early 20th Century.

For those not familiar, George advocated removing all taxes except for those on land. Bellamy wrote "Looking Backward" which advocated a communal society, which, among other things, had the amount of work performed be inverse to how unpleasant it was. Everyone earned the same amount, but worked different amounts of time to earn it.

So why has libertarianism persisted for over 50 years? Before I answer I'll ask all those who are sympathetic to the libertarian ideals how they first learned of these ideas? (You don't have to reply in print, necessarily, just cast your mind back.)

For ideas to persist they need to kept before the public. Henry George and Bellamy had popular appeal but no "infrastructure". The libertarian movement has infrastructure. This includes the many think tanks such as the CATO institute, Hoover and Heritage Institutes and a variety of others. It also has some academic departments which promote "libertarian" economic policies. The most well known being Chicago and George Mason. Institutions require a source of funds and in the case of the libertarian ones the source of funds all comes from a very small group of super wealthy individuals and the foundations they control.

I'll give a single example, you can investigate further if you wish by visiting the Sourcewatch and Mediatransparency web sites. Let's look at Cato, beloved of libertarians (or at least one group of them...):

Founded in 1977 by libertarian activists Charles Koch and Edward H. Crane, the Cato Institute moved to Washington, D.C. in 1981 in a bid to become an influential player in Washington policy circles. Today (1997), Cato is a multi-million dollar, multi-issue research and advocacy organization with a staff of 40-plus senior managers, policy analysts, and communications specialists. It is also assisted by the work of over 75 adjunct Cato scholars...

The Cato Institute has been supported by:

* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

If you cross check some of the names on this list (Koch, Coors, Olin, Scaife) you will find them as backers of many of the other sites I mentioned. In other words the intellectual infrastructure is not a result of the force of the libertarian arguments, but is kept going by the infusion of money from a small group of people. What these people all have in common is that they are very wealthy and that they inherited their wealth. Some have gone on to increase their wealth far beyond what they inherited, but they had the family business to build on.

Now what is one of the "libertarian" principles that these groups promote: people should be able to earn and keep as much money as they are able. Taxes (especially inheritance tax) are a "taking" and must be resisted. This same group has also been behind the effort to repeal the estate tax. To give a single example, the Walton family (which owns Walmart) stands to save $40 billion if the estate tax is repealed. Spending a few million to promote its elimination is a good investment. If you are interested in the details of this effort here's a report:

Estate Tax Report (PDF)

So the wealthy set up think tanks which employ "libertarians". These people owe their livelihood to the funders. They may also have a philosophical bent which attracts them to this cause, but they are shills nevertheless.

I put some data together on George Mason's economics department, which is a Koch-funded effort. Here's the link:
How to "buy" a university

It is this life support system which keeps libertarianism alive in the US. For various reasons there is not the same confluence of wealthy self interest elsewhere and thus, the movement has almost no standing elsewhere in the world.

So back to the question of where did you first learn of libertarianism. I'm willing to guess that even if was via Ayn Rand, you soon found other places which reinforced her ideas. If you hadn't there were be no discussions and you would have found yourself isolated just as the modern day Georgists (yes there still are a few) are.

The connection between the conservative political and libertarian movements has been fostered by the infusion of money. That's why libertarians ended up in the GOP, because that's the party of the wealthy. Libertarianism can't survive on its own, it's a utopian philosophy and is of no value to actual policy makers, but as an ideal which can be used to attract people into the GOP tent ("I'm a Republican, I just disagree about X") it has been a resounding success.

Notice that while the "conservatives" have been abandoning the GOP lately, the libertarian institutions are still holding fast. They know better than to bite the hand that feeds them.

I've written before as to why libertarianism is a flawed idea, you can read several of my essays on my web site so I won't repeat them here.

The fallacy that libertarians who aren't being paid to promote these ideas make is that they think their interests coincide with those funding the movement, they don't. Excessive wealth concentration is never going to benefit the average person. You have one chance in a 100 of having to pay any estate tax even under the present rules and policy is being set by a behind the scenes group of the super wealthy. This is a plutocracy, not democracy.