Rand was a good start, but it is time to move past her. She was a flawed human being with a good idea, an idea which expressed itself purely in Atlas Shrugged, one which can be quickly and easily expressed, without 1200 pages of story, or a three hour long radio address.
Indeed, the ultimate ideal is present in nearly all of literature in the behavior of heroes, and in the actions which secure the loyalty of soldiers and the citizenry. That is simply: do not initiate aggression, but do not hesitate to to turn aside aggression with force.
The standard archetype of the hero has a person who lives a normal life until confronted with aggression by some other party. The hero will process this in a varying amount of time (perhaps instantly, as in superhero comics, perhaps over the course of decades, as in The Count of Monte Cristo), overcoming the obstacles created by the antagonist's aggression until revenge/justice is served.
Where Rand stands out is that she recognized that concepts can be enemies. Concepts like incompetence, ignorance, and most of all, the State (witness the power people granted to anyone they thought was from Washington in Atlas Shrugged). This is an important advancement. Superman never fought the US government before Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, in the US, the government was almost universally thought of as a force for good to the extent that the government WAS good (ie things that the government does are by definition good, where enemies of the government are by definition evil). With this concept placed at the forefront, we can see the world much more clearly.
Black loves the concept of the grey, because it allows it to masquerade as something like white. But the fact is that the world IS black and white. You either initiate force, or you don't. The concept of grey is an illusion created inside your head to justify evil because of some good, real or imagined. People think that there is such a thing as grey because they have accepted evil as good. The most obvious example of this is the concept of "government". Government is by definition an institution of aggression. "It" has a monopoly on the use of physical force in every incarnation I have ever seen. I say "it", but government isn't really a thing, but rather a concept, specifically a concept where some people have the right to hurt and kill other people, not only that, but they get to steal money from them, or land, and all manner of other violations of God's Commandments. See the government depicted in Braveheart for other violations that we are less familiar with (primae nocte).
Yes, governments require people to see grey for them to exist, and now governments have taken over the entire world, more or less, and as such, the world is seen as grey. But perception is not reality. The reality is that the world is black and white, and we accept evil because it is convenient to pretend that evil is good.
The alternative seems too scary to contemplate, despite the fact that it already largely exists, and could easily exist without the deadly parasite of institutional violence/threats of violence. Really, how many times a day does the government intervene on your behalf? Has it ever done so once in your life? Perhaps you have been protected from some killer or mugger, but the reality is that police don't stop such people. At best they catch them afterwards, a job much more suited to private detectives (ie people who are accountable and non-unionized==lazy worthless heaps). Perhaps you thank them for the rules of traffic control. But such rules apply equally to toll roads, so why wouldn't they apply to private road systems (generally paid for by commercial traffic, which is what pays for roads today, with cheap or free use for small vehicles used by private citizens). Perhaps you think the government is needed to prevent invasion? This is probably the smallest evil among the many evils of government, the one easiest to justify as a good. Of course, to make it a good, we need only look to our own past, and the models of other nations. Militias, which are voluntary organizations, are very bad at fighting aggressive wars, but are nearly invincible when it comes to defense (when armed with rifles--sniping is the most effective use of force on an invading or occupying army currently known). Hitler knew this, which is why he never invaded Switzerland. Napoleon didn't know this, which is why he was never able to hold Spain. Yamamoto knew this, which is why he pointed out the utter folly of an invasion of the mainland US. Many others know this, which is why to install and perpetuate their totalitarian states, they first make guns illegal.
So accepting this widely understood concept as being real, we can see that voluntary organizations can perform the basic task of preventing/resisting foreign invasion. Add on top of that the use of private security firms or social insurance companies (something I have described in great detail before, but can't seem to find with a Google search), which could employ merchant marines to protect trade routes, a powerful coast guard to prevent amphibious landings by hostile forces/dumping by foreign states (a problem for stateless societies), and even nuclear submarines for a nuclear deterrent. That is the extent of the greatest "stretch" of anarchocapitalism. That is a world that is almost exactly the same as today, just with a couple more private institutions, and a LOT fewer government institutions. More capital is accumulated, and everyone gets richer.
That said, anything between here and there is a step in the right direction, even if people should get weary of the journey, resting along the way, or even permanently settling for minarchy would be "good enough". Yes, I am willing to accept some black in the world as a matter of practicality. I am a human after all.