They were radicals. Revolutionaries. It's always interesting to me how current conservatives try to identify themselves with flaming revolutionaries like Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine. They were against the establishment and willing to fight and die for the cause of liberty. Now people aren't even willing to vote for the cause of liberty.
I don't agree with your definition of revolutionary today. How is the control of the economy being given over to the government? I suppose giving the Fed more influence does that. No major companies or industries have been nationalized in the U.S. since the telephone industry in 1918. There have been some minor ones like airport security.
Was Che Guevara a revolutionary?
Was Fidel Castro?
Was Ayatollah Khomeni?
Was Lenin?
These are the revolutionaries of the 20th century and they absolutely gave control of industry to the government. The American colonists in the late 1700's didn't do that.
From what I've seen here, y'all are viewing the Founding Fathers through 2018 prescription lenses. IOW, you are projecting 2108 attitudes on to 18th-century colonists\Continentals.
The Founding Fathers were at the start seeking their rights as free-born Englishmen. They saw the Crown as violating the rights won during the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.
Not so much libertarian in the modern sense of the word, rather they viewed their colonial legislatures as the proper taxing authorities, not Westminster. London learned a harsh lesson which it applied to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For example, London did not allow her American subjects to gain officers' commission in the 60th (Royal American) Regiment. Instead, Horse Guards recruited German and Swiss officer applicants. The colonies would have been more willing to be taxed if the money raised had gone to locally born men. Washington tried and failed to gain a regular British Army commission.
Of course they were but of a different kind than Tom Paine. America was and is a great experiment in democracy. The revolutionaries you cite were communists and dictators. Ben Franklin actually was a supporter of the Crown and got his son appointed to be the English Gov. of NJ. But then he was persuaded to change his perspective and supported the cause of liberty and democracy. Was the Boston Tea party a revolutionary event?
It is not really either in the strictest adherence to the classical definitions. We are definitely closer to a Republic. One of my professors built a convincing case that we were a "Democratic Republic." Another built an equally compelling case we were a "Constitutional Republic." We are definitely not a Democracy or a true Republic.