Players at home can apply the above lines of thought to figure out how Objectivism/Libertarianism would take care of important things like
global warming, the homeless, endangered species, etc. Or
orphaned children.An interesting point, is that Murray Rothbard, Arch-Libertarian, and founder of a lot of the ideology within the Austrian school of thought, feels that the free market will take care of orphans because people that want kids will just adopt them without any sort of other incentive. History has not borne this out. The modern era has not borne this out. The Austrian school of economics
denies empirical evidence, of course, so that "this hasn't worked in the past, it won't work in the future" becomes false because "it wasn't libertarian enough!!". Even societies like Somalia or Pinochet's Chile or similar entirely bootstrap freemarkets are simply too constricted by regulation and impositions on freedom to function like true ideal pure magical dreamworld free market.
Rothbard has a lot to say about children and libertarian rights. Parents can't outright kill their children, but they shouldn't be forced to feed, educate, clothe, or interact with them in any ways. He argues that such things simply should not be enforced, and that, yes, those children should be allowed to be seriously damaged or outright let to die. This is different than simply killing them because of philosophical semantics. He admits that to harm or let a child die in such a way would be ethically bad, but it isn't for someone to judge. It's moral relativism, despite being based in so called 'objective' thought.
Edit: So as to not triple post:
I think this thread could use some stronger term definitions, since in any philosophical discussion, meanings can be skewed based on colloquially usages, etc.
For Example: I am a
philosophical objectivist of the original, 19th century definition, in that I believe in objective truth and objective ethics. Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' really has nothing to do with this, beyond a few baseline platitudes of "A=A" and "there are right actions and wrong ones", etc. It does not follow that believing in those things would intrinsically lead to beliefs that one is not required to help another, even against their own will, or similar. If anything, a true objectivist would see that there are many routes to workable outcomes. There is no single right answer to, say, create a working government, or even on a smaller scale, there is no one true correct way to tie your shoes. There are objective facts about different shoelacing methods that would each have their own distinct qualities that could be sorted into pros and cons, and depending on different values, a 'best' method might be derived. To say that Ayn Rand's Objectivism leads, through superlogic, to the one true path to economic and ethical purity, is absurd.
Full disclosure: I've spent almost the entirety of the year, in my spare time, cataloging arguments against libertarianism and Randian objectivism. In this time I've come to empathize deeply with those who believe in it all, solely because I can see exactly why it would be appealing to think the world is a true meritocracy, or similar. But at the same time, I've seen many people who willfully deny plentiful evidence, cast aside history, and want to cut the hard fought safety nets many governments provide to let the 'undeserving' die just to roll the dice one more time.