There are certainly similarities between Libertarianism and Objectivism that have led many people, erroneously, to conclude that Libertarianism is Objectivism. For example:

• Both Libertarians and Objectivists claim that they value liberty.
  
• Libertarians and Objectivists use a Non-Aggression Axiom to determine when the use of coercive physical force is appropriate.
  
• Many who consider themselves to be Objectivists join Libertarian organizations.

However, there are differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism. The differences result chiefly from the fact that, whereas Libertarianism is amoral and eschews the making of moral judgments, Objectivism is a complete moral philosophy requiring the moral person to judge good from evil and to deny the fruits of the former to the latter: Objectivism is actually Libertarianism's antithesis in this sense. Objectivism's adherence to an objective moral philosophy gives rise to two key political differences between Objectivism and Libertarianism:

• According to the Objectivist philosophy, every individual has inalienable, natural rights of life, liberty and property. Whereas some Libertarians agree with the Objectivists in this regard, the existence of natural rights of life, liberty and property are not defining characteristics of Libertarianism. Many Libertarians disagree with the assertion that individuals have natural rights of property, or oppose personal property altogether.
  
• Objectivism is, and all Objectivists are, purely capitalist. There are no left-wing, socialist, or otherwise collectivist versions of Objectivism. The same cannot be said of Libertarianism: it can only be said the some Libertarians are capitalist.
  
• Objectivism has a single, unambiguous understanding of what it means to be coercive: to an Objectivist, inaction never constitutes the initiation of coercive physical force. Libertarians differ in their views about what constitutes coercion (primarily, as a result of their differing views about the propriety of rights of personal property). For example, to some Libertarians refusing to give a starving man some of the food that you have grown constitutes the initiation of coercive physical force, on the belief that nobody should hold personal property, and that a person should get what he needs from a person with the ability to provide it. Other Libertarians agree with the Objectivist view that inaction never constitutes the initiation of the coercive use of physical force.
  
• Anarchism is compatible with Libertarianism, but incompatible with Objectivism. Some Libertarians are Anarchists: they reject the need for a government and would prefer not to have one. In contrast, Objectivism holds government to be necessary and indispensable on the ground that government places the use of coercive physical force under objective control: government (including courts, with their rules of evidence etc.) are seen as a check on the dangerous passions of those who have (or who think they have) had one or more of their natural rights violated by a given suspect.

Q2.

How is Libertarianism distinguished from Conservatism or Liberalism?

Libertarianism has certain clear and consistent characteristics and beliefs. In contrast, neither Conservatism nor Liberalism has a feature that can be said to be common to all who consider themselves to be Conservatives or Liberals. In practice, Conservatism and Liberalism, these days, are not ideologies. Conservatism tends simply to be a collection of policies endorsed at a given point in time by a political party that has come to be identified by most people as "Conservative"; Liberalism tends simply to be a collection of policies endorsed at a given point in time by a political party that has come to be identified by most people as "Liberal". Thus, for example, the federal Republican Party in the USA, or the Progressive Conservative party in Canada are both called "Conservative" parties, but their policies are in many ways radically different and actually antithetical to one another. For example, most Republicans in the USA would oppose a socialist health care system like that found in Canada, but most Progressive Conservatives in Canada would oppose eliminating the government's socialist health care monopoly in Canada. Despite the sometimes wide differences in policy espoused by different Conservative parties, most members of each Conservative party would nonetheless be called "Conservatives".

That said, there are certain fairly reliable observations that can be made concerning the differences between Libertarians on the one hand, and "Conservatives" or "Liberals" on the other:

• Libertarianism is committed to the non-aggression axiom, whereas many Conservatives and Liberals are not, and advocate government actions that would actually violate the non-aggression axiom: such things as the criminalization of marijuana possession, the raising of tax rates, the burning of ones own flag, a military draft, etc. In fact, without trying in any way to be insulting, many Conservatives and Liberals have no idea what is meant by the term "non-aggression axiom".
  
• Libertarianism is amoral: it has no code of good and evil (i.e., of ethics). Some Conservatives and Liberals are amoral, but it would be false to say that Conservatism or Liberalism is amoral even if some Conservatives and some Liberals are amoral. Arguably, most Conservatives and Liberals are not amoral, and advocate or implicitly embrace one or another code of ethics. That said, it would be false to conclude that all Conservatives share a single code of ethics, or that all Liberals do so: there is no single, Conservative or Liberal ethical code, per se. For example, many Conservatives, particularly in the USA, but in other countries as well, adopt a code of ethics set out by their religion, be it Jewish, Christian, Islamic or other, and each religion's code of ethics may differ significantly.
  
• Whereas Libertarians argue that injustice can only result from a violation of the non-aggression axiom, neither Conservatism nor Liberalism limits the definition of injustice in that way. Conservatives and Liberals identify injustice in a variety of ways and many Conservatives and Liberals would consider certain acts to be evil and unjust even if the acts did not involve a violation of the non-aggression axiom. Thus, many Conservatives and Liberals support the use of force by government to fight conduct that they consider evil though the conduct involves no violation of the non-aggression axiom (e.g., possessing marijuana, cornering the coffee market).
  
• Many Libertarians are Anarchists, whereas most Conservatives and Liberals are not Anarchists.

Q3.

How is Libertarianism distinguished from Anarchism?

Anarchism is, essentially, the belief that there need not and ought not to be a government. Libertarianism is compatible with Anarchism, but Anarchism is not a defining feature of Libertarianism. A Libertarian society need not be Anarchistic. Whereas some Libertarians are Anarchists, many are not.

Q4.

Are all Libertarians Individualist? Are all Individualists Libertarian?

Individualism could most generally be defined as "any doctrine or practice based on the assumption that the individual and not society is the paramount consideration or end" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). Individualism is not a political ideology per se, though some philosophies (e.g., Objectivism) are individualist in nature. Individualism is not a defining feature of Libertarianism. Many, but not all Libertarians are individualists. Some Libertarians are dedicated collectivists, eschewing such things as property rights for individuals.

Nor is it the case that all individualists are Libertarian. Some individualists, for example, are Objectivists.

Q5.

Are all Libertarians Collectivist? Are all Collectivists Libertarian?

Collectivism could most generally be defined as "any doctrine or practice based on the assumption that society and not the individual is the paramount consideration or end". Collectivism is not a political ideology per se, though some political ideologies (e.g., Communism) are Collectivist in nature. Collectivism is not a defining feature of Libertarianism. Many, but not all Libertarians are collectivists. Some Libertarians are dedicated individualists, embracing such things as property rights for individuals.

Nor is it the case that all collectivists are Libertarian. Some collectivists, for example, are Stalinists.

Q6.

Are all Libertarians Capitalist? Are all Capitalists Libertarian?

Capitalism is a political system in which it is not illegal for individuals to exclude others from the use of certain things (e.g., land, chattel) and activities (e.g., reproduction of written or recorded works). The power to exclude in this manner is commonly referred to as "property rights".

Only some (perhaps most, in North America) Libertarians are Capitalist. Other Libertarians embrace collectivist systems for the use of such things as land and chattel, etc., typically distributing such things to each person according to his/her need, and from each person according to his/her ability.

Some Capitalists are Libertarians, but not all. Some Capitalists embrace other political ideologies or philosophies (e.g., Conservatism, Objectivism). Other Capitalists refrain from an explicit adoption of a political ideology or philosophy altogether.

Q7.

Can a religious person be a Libertarian?

Yes. Libertarianism itself has no explicit code of ethics (i.e., it is amoral), and that is arguably so that a Libertarian code of ethics cannot come into conflict with any given Libertarian's own ethical code (for example, one derived from a religion). That said, if one's ethics effectively dictated that the non-aggression axiom is evil, or that ones laws must be drafted to combat evil, one may find oneself unable to be true both to Libertarianism and to ones religion.

Q8.

Does Libertarianism value liberty? If so, why?

One highly regarded Libertarian, Anarcho-Capitalist economist Murray Rothbard, explained that Libertarianism sees liberty as a precondition for virtuous (i.e., good) conduct. He argued that ones conduct cannot be judged good or evil if one has not freely chosen to engage in the conduct in question. For example, according to Rothbard's reasoning, if the donor chose to give the money only because he was told that he would be killed if he did not donate the money, the donor's act of donating the money was not virtuous: to be virtuous, according to Rothbard, the donation would have to have been voluntary rather than coerced.

Of course, Rothbard's explanation fails to explain why voluntary conduct can be good and coerced conduct cannot: Rothbard does not explain how he comes to the conclusion that liberty itself is virtuous. It has been argued by some Objectivists (most notably, Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute) that it is actually a myth that Libertarianism values liberty or considers it good (see his "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" in Ayn Rand's book, The Voice of Reason). Schwartz argues that because Libertarianism is opposed to judging good from evil, or morally valuable from morally worthless, Libertarianism cannot logically consider liberty to be good or valuable. Schwartz argues that Libertarianism's implicit or explicit claim - that it holds liberty as its highest value - to be false and unwarranted: Libertarianism rejects the making of moral evaluations so it cannot evaluate the desirability of liberty. Schwartz essentially argues that Rothbard's claim - that liberty is a precondition for passing moral judgment on ones conduct - is illogical, because such a claim involves an implicit moral judgment: that liberty is good. Schwartz asserts that, in fact, Libertarianism is nihilistic, and that if it ever became popular and politically powerful, the Libertarian movement would actually destroy liberty (if unintentionally).