I really do not get the differences that Objectivists have with libertarianism and especially I do not get Ayn Rands critique. To get it more clear I would like to hear a debate between:
1. An objectivist like Yaron Brook.
2. A minarchist libertarian (if there are any?). I would say that even Ron Paul is really an anarchist if it comes down to it. :-)
3. An anarchist libertarian like Stefan Molyneux (or Hans Hoppe but he does not seem to be a debater).
Note that a debate between anarchist Stefan Molyneux and Minarchists Michael Badnarik and Jan Helfeld have already taken place, where the discussion centered mainly on issues from effect (consequentialism):
Also there is a small debate between Yaron Brook and anarchists here:
I like to see the debate focus on good and evil, so morality. This probably excludes group 2 because those people are usually consequentialists. But I like to know what the poblem is that Objectivists have with minarchist libertarians and with anarchist libertarians. I suspect that it has to do with ethics.
Libetarianism -vs- Objectivism By Walter Block
This is a response to Peter Schwartz's, a current head in the Objectionist movement, critique on Libetarianism...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Anarchism as Constitutionalism: A Reply to Bidinotto -Roderick Long
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.