Almost the entire Objectivist political theory is explicated in Ayn Rand's Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. During a recent discussion, which began with a simple statement I made about that theory (and from which I was promptly banned) a number of mistakes were made that need to be addressed. Here is a little of that discussion.

I made no argument against government, however, and only pointed out there is a contradiction in the way Rand's specific design of government is presented. Instead of addressing that very obvious contradiction, all sorts of things I never said or suggested are presented and attacked.

My only point is, as Rand has described it, a government must be an agency with the power to initiate force if it is to hold "exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." The simple solution for those who are certain Rand's formulation of government is correct would be to accept that fact and justify it on the basis it must have that power, and so long as that is the only case of initiation of force (which it would almost certainly never have to exercise), it might be justified by some argument which I leave it to them to work out.

But, as is always the case with those trying to justify a contradiction, they push on into ever wider circles of contradiction. In the very first sentence, for example:

"it [government] will have to force you to obey its laws by arresting you for violating them."

This obvious contradiction is repeated so often in Objectivist discussions of government, it is embarrassing to have to keep pointing it out. If the government is "arresting you for violating" its laws than it has failed to "force you to obey its laws," which admits form the beginning, it does not work. Oh well. If the only law I break, however is, "thou shalt have no other agency of self-protection before me," and I have harmed no one else or their property and I'm arrested and thrown in clink, that government has initiated force.

But it get's worse.

"But if the laws are just, the force will be retaliatory or defensive, not initiatory or offensive. Obviously, governments must USE force, but Objectivism makes a distinction between the initiation of force and retaliatory force."

This is not so much a contradiction, as it is a blurring of concepts. The mistake first appears in Rand's own work.

"The government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control." [Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, What is Capitalism?"]

What is blurred over is what immediately precedes this in the same sentence, "The only function of the government, in such a [capitalist] society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e.., the task of protecting him from physical force; ..."

I fully discuss this mistake in my article, Beyond Objectivism—Retaliation, but will briefly point out what is wrong, here. Retaliation is not self-defence, which, Rand says, is the only function of the government in a capitalist society. Furthermore, retaliation does not protect anyone from physical force. Obviously, if one is retaliating, the harm (physical force) has already occurred.

There is a companion piece to the article about retaliation, Beyond Objectivism—About Force which those interested in new thought about politics may refer to. In the philosophical field of politics, no one has ever thought further or articulated more clearly the principles that must be the foundation of a free society than Ayn Rand. It's not perfect, however. It may be that no political system can be perfect. In a sense, a political system is a "technology," not a, "science." The science is political philosophy, a government is an attempt to apply the principles of the philosophy in a practical way just as a machine is the technological application of scientific principles in a practical way. No machine is perfect, and probably no government ever will be either.

If there is ever to be a better form of government, however, it will not be reached, or even imagined, so long as those familiar with the best ideas about politics on the planet treat those ideas as a kind of doctrine, never to be questioned or advanced. The simple mistakes I've demonstrated can be corrected, and must be, if a better political philosophy is to be developed. So long as every detail of Objectivism is treated as some inviolate absolute, it has become a kind of faith, which has been described as an agreement with one's self never to learn (or think) anything new. It is obvious for most self-styled Objectivists, that a "faith" is exactly what Objectivism has become.