A Tale of Two Libertarianisms

Ayn Rand was a vehement anti-communist, more classically liberal than the GOP on its best day & very traditional in fighting for the Western Traditions of Aristotlean Logic & Romanticism over the moral & philosophical relativism that was invading Western thought. This ridiculous definition of so-called neo-Objectivists distorts what she stood for.

If there were such an individual as a "Neo-Objectivist", then one would assume that they would offer a "new" philosophy to replace the philosophy of Objectivism. The truth is that there is no "new" philosophy offered by Ron Paul, or anyone else for that matter. The only philosophical thoughts that libertarians have, are those that they have plagiarised from Objectivism and other philosophies.

In trying to put a finer point on your argument you have strayed from the mark. "Demonize & Dismiss", although common enough, is not an argument. Trying to shout down VP Cheney did not make those young people libertarian, it just showed them to be rude and obnoxious. A condition that transcends political philosophy. I believe there are many of us mature enough to disagree without being disagreeable. And carving out one small group of libertarians and saying we like these guys because they agree with us certainly does not make for a logical argument against the ideas you don't agree with. If you want to discuss philosophies great, but this time you slipped into schoolyard name calling.

Thanks for making clear that rationality, morality, and therefore, true capitalism are being evaded and attacked by today's conservatives. Capitalism is radically different from the 'liberty' the conservatives are now debating. A rational man (following Ayn Rand's blueprint) advocates Capitalism only after first identifying reason and egoism as essential for his own survival. The two camps currently described attack Capitalism by destroying its foundations: Conservatism replaces reason with faith the desire to believe without proof, while Libertarianism replaces morality with hedonism, the desire to do whatever one feels like. Capitalism is a threat to both. Capitalism defends the rational and the moral by instituting individual rights including property rights. Once the rational are guaranteed these, religion and hedonism are powerless. For this, Capitalism is attacked by the Conservatives and Libertarians alike. Also, about neo-objectivists (or Buckley Conservatives), there is nothing new about them: they are the both the same tired old cherry-picking pragmatists pecking off bits of Ayn Rand's brilliant achievements in order to appear rational while living by instinct, by feeling, or, as Rand called it, by whim. Capitalism still has only one champion.

There is no such thing as a "neo-objectivist".

And Ron Paul is certainly no objectivist.

1) Ron Paul is not atheist, while objectivism is.
2) Ron Paul is categorically isolationist, while objectivism is not - for example Ayn Rand criticized the WW2 alliance with the USSR merely in the respect that we didn't admit to ourselves that we were allying one tyranny to defeat the other tyranny.
3) Present-day objectivists (including Ayn rand's literal heir himself) do advocate pre-emptive war when necessary (perhaps with Iran for example) - Ron Paul would never do such a thing.

The use of the term "neo-objectivist" demonstrates the author has no understanding of his subject.

Ayn Rand was against libertarianism: it's a large, large grouping consisting of various factions that are philosophically at odds... You have anarchists, the religious, altruists, pacifists etc.

Ron Paul is typically libertarian.

Epic fail on this.

It appears you've correctly identified both breeds of dogs. If you keep exploring further, you'll discover the wide variety of people calling themselves libertarians (itself a set of policy preferences, rather than a philosophical basis). One important point to make is the influence of modern economic thought that distinguishes Conservatism from Libertarianism. The works of von Mises or Hayek may be too recent for Conservatives to embrace but Libertarians tend to thrive on logical analysis vs. societal traditions. As short hand, one might write (libertarian = liberty + formal logic; conservative = liberty + traditions).

It's also possible that Conservatism, as you say, a result of "diligent work, trial and error, and human experience ... based on recognizing the realities of human nature" is going through a phase where it is recognizing some of the 'error' points made in recent policy where policy was enacted without acknowledgement of those realities of human nature. For if Conservatism only ever made trials and stuck with the initial hypotheses, it could never have succeeded. In areas such as drug policy, military adventures, and fiat currencies, it may just so happen that the tracks of Conservatism and Libertarianism are riding next to each other in the present day, and they may once again diverge in the future. But it would be a mistake to say that the two paths never cross because they have different labels.