read this, first, then: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
bringing libertarian rhetoric counters to a Rand fight? This makes no case against libertarian ethics, let alone objectivist ethics. An arguement against objectivism demands the entire context of its epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical postulates. Objectivism isn't anarchism. Objectivism makes its case as the philosophy defining the rational needs of mans existence, including his existence in a social environment, which include laws, courts, and a system to enforce them. Objectivism doesn't state that men cannot bind themselves together by contract to create a system of social welfare, only that they can't force others to be bound to it against their will. The only rational law all men are bound to is to not initiate force, which is broad and encompasses all good laws. A democratically voted law can still be as tyrannical as any other. The arguement of legality is fallacious. Legality defines itself, because something becomes a law, does not make it moral. We are arguing ethics, and ethics can only come from two places, the rational, or the irrational. That is the only grounds we can argue on.
The fact that you posted this either means you have not studied Rand, or you think I haven't.
