- He's against free trade.
- He's in favor of punishing success, represented for example by his threats toward Amazon.
- He panders to religion. Rand was an atheist and was very strongly anti-conservative.
- Rand was very strongly in favor of immigration, especially when mixed with Capitalism.
- He's in favor of drastically increasing government control over the Internet, represented in his numerous quips about shutting down the Internet or otherwise restricting it.
- He has demonstrated a bent against freedom of speech, over and over again. Rand regarded free speech as the the single most important right.
- He's in favor of public healthcare systems. Rand was staunchly against all forms of entitlements, and all forms of socialized healthcare.
- He's a supporter of Social Security and Medicare. Rand was against both, overwhelmingly.
- He's more than fine with significant government regulation of the economy. Rand believed in laissez-faire Capitalism.
This list just keeps going.
Trump could hardly be more anti-Rand. I'd probably be willing to argue that Sanders is less anti-Rand than Trump is.
You'd be correct. On social and personal issues Sanders is very compatible with Randian forms of "libertarianism." He supports ending the drug war and womens' reproductive rights (personal sovereignty over one's body) and the right to make personal choices around things like sexuality, religion, etc.
His economics are far from Rand's but probably not much further (if at all) than Clinton or Trump. It'd probably be a wash there. There were/are no economic libertarians in this race as competitive candidates.
Rand was also not a fan of nationalism, which she regarded as collectivism. I'm not sure how anyone could get nationalism out of Rand except insofar as she believed that a government had a duty to protect its citizens. Beyond that she distrusted the idea of a nation as a component of identity, considering it collectivist.
And yes, many of us are.
Partisan realignments in which a major party is displaced are not "beyond comprehension post-singularity events" (heck, even the kind of electoral reforms that would end duopoly aren't, though they are unprecedented within the US, unlike major realignments) even if its been 150 years since the last one in the US.
I'm at a loss to see how we disagree on my point. The libertarian party won't be upending our two-party system at the national level. Ever.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-...
What? Exactly what libertarian values does Trump espouse?
Why is this being downvoted?
My personal prediction is that if elected he will grow the size of government dramatically, quite likely more than Sanders would have if elected and certainly more than Clinton (who is the "conservative" candidate in this election if that means status quo). He will also grow the power of government, which is more important and significant.
Unless he gets annoyed and calls up bill gates to shut off the internet.
> meritocratic systems
Except for Muslims.
You know who is libertarian? Gary Johnson.
Trump is literally lying about his opposition to the Iraq war and his supporters don't care. He also picked a running mate who voted for the Iraq war, despite criticizing his opponent for it.
I try not to paint an entire populous with a broad brush. But logic doesn't appear to be something that, on average, is exhibited by the voters.