I assume you see a patent copyright and trademark system under "Courts of Law?"

Let's look for a moment at Rand's objections to libertarians. From my recollections, she did not like these aspects of them:
1. They borrowed her ideas without credit.
2. They misrepresented her when they did give her credit.
3. They were "do whatever you want" hippies. (In her distinct accent she called them "Leebertairian heepies.")
4. They attracted socialists, anarchists and mystics, and as such actually had no consistent philosophy. Many of them were, for one reason or another, anti-Rand or anti-Objectivist.
5. To the extent they were politically effective they were her enemy.

Why would she see them as an enemy? I think it was because they saw philosophy as useless and political activism as the correct path.

If I remember correctly, Rand said that the time for action is when you are unable to speak. Or perhaps when that hammer is about to fall on you. If you find that you must self-censor your thoughts before speaking or writing, or that you are writing satirical works to avoid being caught in a "national security" net, revolutionary political action is needed. If instead Libertarians are only drawing votes away from those trying to preserve civilization, they are making a mistake.

Objectivists are philosophers. Libertarians are politicians.

Three weeks ago was Purim. Did anyone read the Book of Esther? Some would say its lesson is, "Jews do not bow down to authority." Do Objectivists bow down to other philosophies? Do Libertarians bow down to political necessity?

What is supposedly the major virtue of an Objectivist?

I think that's a pretty broad brush to paint. Both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh openly voiced serious reservations with the Patriot Act even before parts of it were found to be unConstitutional. And President Bush II wasn't a true Conservative. While he did get some tax cuts passed, no real Conservative would have passed a huge Medicare/Medicaid expansion.

I think the main difference is that Libertarians tend to side with the Conservatives on fiscal issues, but with Liberals on social issues - that's why it's been so hard for them to become a major party. Our country has been a two-party system for more than two hundred years (though we have seen the death of the Whigs and the founding of the Republicans and the takeover of the Democratic party by Progressives).

Apples and oranges. Libertarian is a political affiliation with a platform. Objectivism is a philosophy that addresses politic

Hello JoshA95,
There have been numerous threads debating this subject on this site previously.
Much of what Rand thought of the Libertarians is now dated. They are not the anarchists they once were, many now espouse limited government, constitutional principles, but there are still differences. The morality for one thing is not founded upon the same principles. Reason vs. Whim... Rand did not find it acceptable to do whatever feels good just because it does not use force. Remember an "objectivist" should not do something that is not in one's self interest even if there is no use of force. For instance, some around you may be hurt thus damaging your reputation, prospects, as well as your own reason by self abuse, unrestrained addictions, behavior, etc. There are several "official" essays on the subject in Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Piekoff, The Voice of Reason, etc.
Some references from the Lexicon: http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...
Respectfully,
O.A.

Well there are many differences between Objectivism and Conservatives, but politically, I would say military industrial complex, law and order, esp. the war on drugs, immigration issues, and safety. Conservatives had no problem with the Patriot Act originally and now we will never get rid of the TSA.

While I am a pretty damn ok with libertarians it seems that they spend a great deal of time on the freedom part but very little time on the importance of the mind. So perhaps it is a different set of priorities that still get them to a good place but for me leaves a little too much wiggle room, and a chance to try to occasionally try to get away with a=b. Also I identify as a libertarian because people recognize the term and I see myself as a student of objectivism since will probably never be as perfect at it as I would like.

Interesting. When my computer crashes, the first thing they recommend is to re-boot with the original factory settings. Sounds like we need to re-boot the Constitution. Is there a re-set button?

Hmm good question. I haven't thought about it much but I would place conservative under the category of libertarian.

Thanks a lot! That was very helpful.

So, the same can be said of Conservatism encompassing libertarianism and objectivism?

I'm a Conservative. I believe that government should be limited in its scope as given by the US Constitution. As for social control, I believe certain constraints are needed when you live and function within a society. Can these constraints be overbearing and threatening to freedom? Yes, this is why the most governance should come at the state and local level where the individual can directly influence his/her environment. Economic freedom. Indeed. Taxes taken from you for someone else is theft. Does that mean no taxes should be collected? Yes. The Constitution established a tariff system, not a tax code or IRS. Like Objectivists, the Individual and the individual sovereignty over his/her self reign supreme. This is why I see nearly no difference between Objectivism and Conservatism (and maybe, by the definition above Libertarianism).

So the main difference is that one does not believe in a god and the other may?