I would have shamefully liked watching her say almost anything, but that quickly faded as she got into an interesting overview of Rand's problems with various types of libertarianism.

As she says, objectivism is a reality/knowledge theory, while libertarianism is a political philosophy. When I say I'm "libertarian" I mean I want modest incremental reforms that support a kind of liberty consistent with my understanding of objectivist philosophy.

Rumpler briefly mentions a quote saying it's impossible to have a free market providing the force to protect us from uses of force that destroy the free market. It seems like she's suggesting we need a Leviathan to keep order. I agree, but I think it should be minimal and carefully constructed with the consent of the governed.

From a political standpoint, I wish objectivists would give support to any proposal to decrease the intrusiveness and size of gov't. I don't see a fast libertarian revolution or a collapse of modern society coming. It will keep going like this. People elected to office will keep having to choose whether to seek support from those who hate gun owners or pot smokers. As soon as something like the Tea Party or OWS appears, politicians must scramble to pull them into the bi-partisan narrative. It can't be that the Tea Party and OWS wanted less intrusive/expensive gov't. It must be they're racist or communist. It must come back to hating your neighbors. As long as OWS and their Tea Party neighbors are mad at one another, the bi-partisan consensus is safe.

I think we need an "incrementalist" libertarian movement.