Agree 100%

I am Tea Party. I can honestly say I couldn't care less about homosexuals. Gay doesn't help someone fix my car, build my patio, or make him/her more likely to buy and read my books.My angst comes up when the matter is constantly being thrust into my consciousness. Live an let live is fine by me, Unfortunately, LGBT insist that I know who they are rather than allowing me to encounter people. To pilfer an bastardize a famous, quote "One day we may judge each other by the content of their character rather than their sexual orientation."

I'd wager that MOST Tea Party people, at least the vast majority I know and associate with, feel the same way.

I am one such philosophically and ethically deep libertarian that is not an objectivist precisely because I think for myself rather than letting Ayn Rand do it for me. Ayn Rand was self-inconsistent on the atheism point. Even if she is right that there is no creator, the self-consistent conclusion is agnosticism. Libertarianism permits polite disagreements and is a much more appropriate governing philosophy. Objectivists, as sjatkins eloquently points out, "are much more likely to heavily criticize and attack their own." That is objectivism's main challenge as a governing philosophy, as opposed to a personal philosophy. What Ayn Rand discussed in AS was personal philosophy.

The main difference is that the objectivist generally has a much deeper philosophical grounding for their politics and other opinions than the average libertarian. Starting with a solid basis in objective reality and the manifest value of oneself as the source of values. They have a broader and more thought out ethics and philosophy overall.

There are exceptions. There are many quite philosophically and ethically deep libertarians that are not objectivists.

On the negative side objectivists are much more likely to heavily criticize and attack their own. Some objectivists seem to think that Ayn Rand did all the think necessary and figured it all out thus absolving them from thinking for themselves. Those tend to do most of the attacking.

I know the quote quite well and respect the sentiment (its a lot longer the popular snippet). However I doubt that Jefferson reasoned that a free people would ever don the shackles of socialism or communism by voluntarily revising the core elements of the Constitution to create the environment. Don't you?

Libertarians I know would respond as follows:

Metaphysics: No one else's business
Epistemology: Up to the individual
Ethics: Up to the individual
Politics: Limited government.
Mind your business (as was on our coins prior to In God We Trust).

The bottom line is libertarianism gives maximum flexibility (liberty and freedom) to the individual while keeping statism at bay. I don't know any real libertarians that want anything to do with statism, although many Republicans do.

I would agree with m082844's statements about objectivism.

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Egoism
Politics: Laissez Faire Capitalism

EXCEPT that if one were to apply the Objective Reality criterion correctly to Objectivism, then the logical conclusion should not be atheism because that makes a statement of faith that cannot be proven either. If Ayn Rand and objectivists were to be self-consistent
with Objective Reality metaphysics, then the appropriate response would be agnosticism, not atheism. Because she and none of the rest of you can KNOW whether this is a creator or not if you are to apply Objective Reality metaphysics.

I'm stuck on the man + woman = human. Even if it can't live independent of its host (mother) it still a human being being formed. We will have to agree to disagree here.

define the issues. It has frankly never-not once-even come up at any tea party rally I attended. Are you saying it should be part of their issues? cuz we all need liberty, we all need less govt, we all need fewer taxes-why do we have to get into specific groups' want lists? The tea party movement is much broader than that and can accommodate anyone who is concerned about liberty, the Constitution, and onerous taxation.

Joy, there are plenty of tea party members who are Atheist

the point is, if you accept illogical planks in a platform, people adhere to the illogical in the name of Libertarianism or Conservativism or Republica/Democrat.

To make my political leanings clear to all, I voted for Gary Johnson in the last Florida Republican primary (before he dropped out) and in the general election. While I am personally quite conservative, government must be more tolerant if it is not to become statist, as is being discussed on another thread.

I happily wore a name badge to numerous Tea Party meetings that said "Quentin Daniels". The numerous people who knew me that asked me why on earth I was wearing someone else's name tag got a lengthy discussion about Who Is John Galt for their curiosity.

Robbie is accurate on this post. The biggest difference between objectivism and libertarianism (as defined, as opposed to as practiced by some) is on the existence of a creator. Libertarians permit disagreement on this topic. If Ayn Rand had been self-consistent on her logic, she should have concluded that neither the existence of a creator nor the lack of existence of a creator can be proven to everyone's satisfaction. If she had done that, she would have been a libertarian with a small "l" instead of an objectivist.

you couldn't get a patent for chopping wood because it would be considered "common knowledge". Improve the Axe and you might have something. It is actually labor intensive to get a patent such that you can protect it, to that might not be infringed upon.
An improved axe design might be patentable, but you have to not only search other axe patents, you also have to search any other way such a device might be used. Maybe someone already developed the same idea but patented it as a lever, or a weapon, and not for chopping wood. Doing that exhaust search is how you cover your tail. then, yes, there are the patent trolls. Those that see your new axe design but realize you didn't extend the patent to include it as a weapon. Is that right?

Point of clarification: Amoco sponsored the research, and The University of Michigan (where I was then) wanted to fight them over the IP. After a brief battle, the lawyers won, and the scientists lost.

I've never been particularly pro life. However, when two humans create a life, no matter which stage its in, it needs protection. As an objectivist, doesn't that life has value as well no? Abortion should not be a form of birth control recreational or otherwise. Responsible actions of the individual would all but eliminate the "problem."

While I agree with most of both Khalling's and Robbie's points, Robbie's last paragraph is dead on. On my one patent application, we decided that it was simplest to let Amoco have the IP and shelve it. It would cost too much to litigate.

True, but that what you accept when you are part of a society, no? On a local level you have a voice. How much you allow you freedom to be restricted at a local level is entirely up to you and your neighbors as opposed to someone who isn't even in your State. Surely the most modest of intellects can see that as well.