Trump and Harris are both so far from Objectivist or libertarian that it hardly matters which one is closer. The reason we should prefer Trump is that Congress won't work with him no matter which party controls it (recall that he couldn't get his wall funded when both houses were R), so we should be spared any big new agencies or spending programs. These days, that's the best we can reasonably hope for from the Federal government.

Besides the oxymoron of "the libertarian right" (remember that Smallest Political Quiz?) it's well established that many who profess to follow Ayn Rand wouldn't recognize Objectivism if it bit them. In my humble opinion, DJT is as close to Rand as we're likely to see at the top of a major party ticket for now.

Dr. Hurd makes some good points. But he is considered anathema by the Ayn Rand Institute and by The Objective Standard.

Absolutely right! If the US collapses, two countries will reemerge, or a significant states over federalism will result.

That is a long way of saying what I've been saying for years: "There are two choices, or a spite vote". There is absolutely no question a Trump administration better supports freedom than Guy-dum or Kamel-scum-dum. NONE AT ALL.

I read Reason regularly too. It astonishes me how many Libertarian Trump-negative articles there are. Unless you live in a completely Blue state, like NY, MA or CA where you vote is completely irrelevant, voting for a Libertarian candidate is stupid and spiteful.

Me dino agrees! I see nothing positive about surrendering to anything negative.
Especially if it pertains to the future of We The People in a Constitutional Republic traitors hate and seeks to destroy.

Absolutely. There is a body of opinion, even on this site, that it is best to have a collapse, like in Atlas Shrugged so a proper small government arrangement will follow. This is implied in Atlas Shrugged but that is a plot device.
I think, a bad election result will give bad consequences, there is no downward limit.

Very interesting. I'm not quite there. But, I admit I have some level of resignation. Why? Because I don't control the election - only one vote. I don't control the October or November Surprise. I can only try to be ready to react to it. I don't control the election tampering like that we've seen with the lawfare. I don't control the election fraud like we saw last time with the infamous "F-curve". I don't control any of that. Does that mean I want Kamala in there...batshit party girl? Certainly not. To want that would be dunderheaded. But, if she's elected America will certainly take a beating from her policies and it will set us back. The premise I don't agree with is that if America collapses, a fantastic Jeffersonian or Libertarian utopia will follow. No guarantee of that. That's like saying if I step on a cock roach a beautiful butterfly will emerge and flutter away...

I cannot imagine how ARI could be more aligned with Harris than Trump. I think Trump is more aligned with the Objectivist philosophy.

He does not give any sources to double check.
I have to treat the source as rhetoric until something substantive, such as recorded video commentary, without soundbite editing, is produced.

I won't dismiss this. I've seen some publications that put ARI in questionable status, objectively. Nothing conclusive, yet caused me to focus more on the passages.