The Contradictions of Objective Government

By Gary Margetson
In Objectivism, the Law of Identity states Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an
attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same
time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time.
A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Further, Rand goes on to say A thing iswhat it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An
existent apart from its characteristics would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a
nothing, a non-existent.
What Rand has rightly identified through Objectivism is that existence exists. Each thing, be it an
object or an action has a nature and that nature has characteristics. A is A and any attempt to identify
a thing as other than its nature dictates is to be contrary to reality. In other words if a concept is
detached from existents, it is what Rand calls A Floating Abstraction.
When considering anything, be it an object or an idea, it is necessary to examine the premise to
assure that the law of identity is not violated; that a thing called A is actually A and not simply so
according to our desires. If the characteristics of what we believe do not coincide with the nature of
that which we believe about it, we have achieved a floating abstraction and are holding a belief that
is contrary to reality.
A contradiction has occurred.
Rand has also rightly identified that man has a nature that is necessary for his survival on this earth.
The source of mans rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A
and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by mans nature for his proper
survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own
free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth
is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group,
any gang, any nation that attempts to negate mans rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which
means: is anti-life. Mans nature is to be free to traverse the course of his life according to his own

free judgment to pursue his happiness. If this is a fundamental reality, a truth of the nature of man,
then anything that contradicts that is not in accordance with the Law of Identity and must be
examined.
If man, by his nature, has a right to be free, how are these rights to be secured? If I have a right to
my life and my freedom to live it, how will this be ensured as much as is possible in reality? What
is necessary for me to live with other men that I may pursue my happiness according to the
judgment of my own mind? How will I be protected from those who are irrational, or believe that
my rights are simply inconveniences to their own ends? How can a rational man have rights in a
world where men behave irrationally?
According to Rand, and advocates of Objectivism, the answer lies in a government only limited to
the use of retaliatory force in the protection of individual rights.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the
task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a governmentof a proper governmentits basic task, its only moral
justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control
i.e., under objectively defined laws.
Further:
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect mans rights, which means: to protect him
from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of mans selfdefense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only
proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect
you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or
fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Such a government would be wonderful indeed! But, what if the characteristics assigned by Rand
are against the very nature of the organization we know as government? What if the proper role of
a government as illustrated by Rand is not attainable in reality and only a system that she wished
could be possible? If the nature of man, freedom to pursue his life unimpeded, assuming he

recognized that right in others, and the nature of government are contrary, how are we to solve this
dilemma? What if it cannot be solved? Was then Rand wrong about the possibility of Objective
Government?
My contention is that she was. That the nature of government and the nature of man are
contradictions and that only one can line up with reality. That the absence of a state, what Rand
refers to as Anarchy, is not a floating abstraction, but the only rational course of man who wishes
to pursue his happiness in a society. It is indeed the STATE, who operates in a manner by its very
existence contrary to the nature of man, and the belief in its necessity, is the concept that is detached
from its existents; a floating abstraction.
This paper will attempt to prove that the belief in Objective Government is a contradiction in two
major areas: that the nature of government and the nature of man are contradictory, and that an
actual Objective Government is not possible in reality. I wish to emphasize; the purpose of this
essay is not to support a stateless society but to show that all government is, as Rand described a
government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the
employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine
designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches
from the role of protector to the role of mans deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the
role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the
right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social
conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
In reality, this is all government can ever be.
The Nature of Man and the Nature of Government
It has been illustrated above what Rand thought about the nature of man. To reiterate, she said
Rights are conditions of existence required by mans nature for his proper survival. If man is to
live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment. Rand
clearly points out that in order for a man to live a rational life, he has to be free to exercise his own
judgment as he sees fit. If this is indeed true, then anything which negates the nature of his freedom
is contradictory to his existence. As Rand so brilliantly put it:

The concept of a right pertains only to actionspecifically, to freedom of action. It means

freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positiveof his freedom to act on his
own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his
rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his
rights.
But what is the nature of government? Do the nature of government and the nature of man align?
Rand once defined government as .. an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain
rules of social conduct in a given geographical area. While I think this definition is incomplete,
because it does not consider its basic characteristics, Rand did give a much more thorough
definition in Capitalism: The unknown ideal:
No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of
physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own
voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is:
*coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of
physical injurythe threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death. (Bold added)
Further, she spoke of her outlook on retaliatory force.
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical
force against others. No manor group or society or governmenthas the right to assume the role
of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use
physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle
involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.
If then, a government initiates force it becomes by its very nature contrary to the nature of man.
Rand seems to try to dance a fine line when she describes the proper role of government as both
*coercive*, since coercion initiates, and retaliatory, which only responds. In fact, the definition of
coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threat. The
definition of retaliation is counterattack; to return like for like. They are opposites because the

definition of the 1st has the threat of force in place regardless of the behavior of anyone involved.
By existing, and by its very nature, according to Rand, government must be coercive to remain
government.
Most involved in this argument on the side of a minimal state agree that a government by necessity
has a monopoly on the legal use of force to enforce those things which it considers its proper areas
of jurisdiction. The supporters of Objectivist government claim that the proper use of force would
be only retaliatory, and therefore would never initiate. These people contend that the only proper
function of a government is police, courts and the military, all to protect the rights of individuals.
In order to maintain this claim, it is necessary that the state be pre-emptive in those areas it
considers its proper jurisdiction. A government, in order to remain a government, and not just be
another business, must be coerciveit must prohibit competition. If it at any point allows
competition it ceases to be a government because it abdicates its necessary power of a pre-emptive
monopoly to enforce its rules over a geographic area. Once another body, or multiple bodies,
assumes authority over any part of the region where the state claims authority, it abdicates its own
designation as the sole arbiter of law. If this is allowed, the state becomes just another player in the
mix. A government, to remain one, must initiate force to prohibit anyone from going into
competition against it. A government, by its nature, and to remain a government, is an initiator of
force and must be.
If a group of people were convinced that a private service could do a more efficient job in any of the
pre-emptive areas the government considers its proper function, such a government would be faced
with a moment of truth. It would have to allow the competition and cease being a government, or it
would forcibly prevent the entrepreneur from competing with it a clear initiation of force. There
are two types of monopolies a market one (open to competition) or a coercive one (closed to
competition). There is not another choice. Government, by disallowing competition, becomes a
coercive monopoly. No matter how you couch it, or protest it, if a state uses force or threats of force
to prohibit individuals from pursuing their rational self interest according to their own judgment,
they are initiating force. Herein lies the basic contradiction of Objective government. By its very
nature it is simply not possible it only performs the tasks of retaliation. It must be a coercive
monopoly exist under the threat of force to prohibit competition in those areas it has preemptively assumed control over.

This misunderstanding of the nature of government alone disqualifies the concept of Objective
government in reality. If, as Rand stated, that the basic political principle Of Objectivism is that no
man may initiate violence, it has now been demonstrated that one of the characteristics of a
government is to prohibit competition, and this is not possible without the overt threat or use of
violence against anyone who would attempt to compete. A government, by its nature, is against the
principles of non aggression Rand outlined, and most in the freedom community embrace. As the
primary purpose of this essay is not to show how a stateless society would work and is in fact
superior to a state, but to show the contradictions of the concept of an Objective government in
reality, what has been already written has accomplished the task. It is in the nature of men to be free
to pursue his own life according to his own judgment. It is in the nature of governments to rule, and
decree certain rules for some men by fiat even if these rules are against the rational judgment of
some men. By the nature of each, these are clear contradictions. However, governments have more
than this one contradiction when viewed through the premise of the possibility of a
minarchist/Objectivist government.
The assumption of Objectivist government lies in the premise of minimal objective laws for a
society that need not be changed, and in fact, could not be changed without admitting they were
never objective in the first place. While the process of reaching these laws will be addressed in the
how portion of the essay, let us take this as a given. We can imagine that by some process, men
have all agreed to such laws, they have been proven beyond doubt to be objective, we have found
and somehow appointed/elected/had a lottery and we have agreed that somehow these objective
laws, concocted by objective men, can be objectively enforced. Great! So now we have a society!
But what happens when some contend with a loud and reasoned enough voice that something has
been left out? What happens when some of our perfect objective men die off, or others are chosen
out of the hat in the next election cycle (or do they preside for life?)? What happens when a man
comes along who, with the same process of objectivity according to reason, realizes some law has
been left out, or a current one is not truly objective? Or do we contend all objective reality will be
known at the inception of such government?
It must then be assumed we would add more laws, or change the ones we had (again, naming them
to never have been objective in this process). As the people in our perfect government died off, or
retired, or would be replaced, we would have men with different outlooks than those we replaced.

More laws would be added. Different methods of enforcement would emerge. The government
would not remain the same, and by necessity change over the course of time.
This leads to the second contradiction in the nature of Objectivist government its ability to remain
limited.
While people like to point to the founding of the United States as an example of the success of
limited government, it is in fact the largest case against it. Never before in History (and never again
in our smaller and populated world) has a country been founded on truer principles, with more
enlightened men, and with a better document to secure those freedoms. Yet our freedom, never
really true, lasted only a short time. While the concept of individual liberty was not a new one, a
country founded on the principle was revolutionary, and truly the greatest accomplishment of the
governments of men in history. While it can readily be debated where the slide began, freedom was
short lived. Where are we now? In no measure can we be called a free society. Even with a
Constitution, enlightened men, and the best system ever devised, we have failed to uphold in any
real measure the vision of the founding fathers. We were once the United States of America in
principle. Now we only are in name.
A rational man has no desire to rule others. A rational man is concerned with his own life and
happiness with no desire to enforce his perspective of what a proper behavior should be on his
fellow man. But, government must do something to be a government. It must have men to do it.
Any government, even an objective one, will create the rules that govern others and this is a
position of power. It then attracts people who seek power. In the belief of Objectivism, men who
seek power are second-handers men who live through the lives of others. Men who seek
positions of power over other men inevitably try to increase their power. In a government, how can
this be done? Invariably, by convincing enough other men that they should be in the positions of
government by setting some men against others. No government can exists without men to govern
it, and no men will govern unless they are chosen to do so by other men. This necessitates that,
whatever decision making process is in place to select rulers, your special interest group must be
larger or more influential than his so you can be chosen.
A government, then, by its nature, attracts the worst kind of men those who seek to rule others.
Men who seek power, wishing to increase that power, will expand the number of objective laws

for the good of the people. No piece of paper, no law, no system of checks and balances can long
keep a government objective or even limited when ruled by men who seek power over other
men. Government, by its nature, will always grow beyond its intended size and purpose. One need
only look to the United States to see this inevitability.
This then, leads to the final leg in this segment of the contradictory natures of government and man.
Ayn Rand said The use of physical force even its retaliatory use cannot be left at the discretion
of individual citizens. This, in fact, is the primary premise of why a government is needed
according to the political philosophy of Objectivism. That for all men to be free, there must be some
men who use their discretion in the use of retaliatory force against those who violate rights. But,
how is this not contradictory? As Frederic Bastiat asked in his essay The Law:
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is
it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed
agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer
clay than the rest of mankind?
Rand says that individual citizens should not be permitted the use of discretionary force, but this
should only be left to the discretion the government. Is the nature of man then, according to what
Rand implied, to use retaliatory force improperly, and not according to their own rational judgment?
If this is true, how does the nature of man change once they become part of a government? Do men,
incapable of making rational decisions as individuals, suddenly acquire this ability once becoming
part of a collective? Do men, unable to be objective as individuals, suddenly become objective as
part of a government? How are objective men chosen from a population who are incapable of the
discretion to act objectively?
This is perhaps Rands largest moral contradiction in the belief of Objective government. Her
philosophy is based on the nature of man being free to pursue his happiness according to his own
rational judgment. Yet, in the area of protecting his own life and freedom, he is suddenly incapable
of exercising that judgment according to reason. If man has the right to be free, it presupposes that
his mind provides him with the ability to be free. Further, Rand was very clear that no man ever
gains additional rights when he joins a group:

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose
the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all
groups or associations.
If this is true, then the very basis of the philosophy of Objective government is undone. If the need
for a state is, as Rand said, that individuals should not have the discretion to use retaliatory force,
then individuals banding together do not suddenly acquire the ability to do so.
Men either have a right to be free or some men have a right to rule others against their consent, but
not both. The nature of government and the nature of man are contradictory. Until these
contradictions can be solved, Objective Government is a floating abstraction.
An Objective Government: How? Blank out.
In any discussion of Objective government versus a free society, both sides claim that they have no
need to prove their case. Objectivists claim that Rand was not a social planner, and the how was
not up to her, only the correctness of the concept. The anarchists claim that the how is secondary
to their claim that they have a right to be free, and the premise of their freedom remains a basic
even if they cant extrapolate how a society would unfold. Only one can be right which one?
A common logic fallacy is Burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making
a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim
does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. The burden of proof is always
on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of
putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The
source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The man who must make his case is the one making a positive claim. Those who claim the right to
be free from government in their pursuit of happiness make no positive claim other than their right
to be free. This is also claimed by those who believe in Objective government, so the premise of the
right of a man to be free is not in question as part of this debate.
However, proponents of Objective government assert much more. They claim that individuals do
not have the discretion to use force, even in retaliation. They claim that a group of men is necessary

to set the rules by which their lives are governed. They claim the authority to have a body that has a
monopoly on force over a geographic area.
Since all the positive claims the authority to set the rules and enforce them for some men over
others are on the side of those who believe in a state, an Objective government, the burden of
proof clearly lies with them.
Objective government is possible? Prove it!
It must be noted here what can only called dishonesty in the tactics used by many who argue for
Rands version of government. They do not spend their energy supporting how their government
would work in reality, but attempt at every measure to shift the burden of proof. If a man claims the
right to be free, and questions what authority they have to set their state above him, they respond
with anarchy wont work! They use semantic spin to debate the nuances of what being ruled
means, or what a government actually is. One man argued that if you agreed to the rules of a poker
game, you had a government. They often devolve into parsing words instead of defending concepts.
They do not demonstrate how their system is objective and workable, but demand it explained in
great detail how freedom would unfold in every area of society. The free man is expected to predict
the future when he claims he has a right to be free. They want you to explain what will happen to
them if you are free. They do not place any burden on themselves to support that which they believe
as a core of their philosophy, but expect that their case is proven if their opponent cant tell you
exactly how roads/justice/dry cleaning would work in a free society. A supporter of Objective
government is the man who claims to believe in UFOs, and when you ask him for proof, he
demands you prove they dont exist. This is a morally dubious position at best. Their argument is a
logistical one, not an ethical one. If a person finds himself in a discussion about the impossibility of
Objective government, beware! The temptation to engage in their who will build the roads
evasions is strong. These questions have been thoroughly answered by other authors, even if those
who cant support their own political philosophy deny or do not understand them. It is worth
remembering that a free man has no need to justify his freedom, and the man who claims the
authority to rule you does. He cannot accept the possibility of the nature of man assuring that
objective reality is better reached through voluntary associations than decreed by a state until he
solves the contradictions of his own position.

Rand referred to blanking out as the willful suspension of ones consciousness, the refusal to
thinknot blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Blanking out is
when reality is presented to a person, and, having no argument or counter to it, refuses to see it
anyway. It is the person who states that he might not be able to explain it, but he feels it. Or he
might not know why, but he trusts the authority of a great philosopher or expert, and believes it
anyway. Few places is this blanking out more prevalent than in people who try to support
Objectivist government in reality. Once you hold them to demonstrating the concepts objectively,
there is a great scramble. Rand was not a social planner they will say. Just because it has not
happened yet does not mean it wont be possible sometime in the future. They are presented with
the contradictions between their position and the requirements of a man to be free, and refuse to see
them; adhering dogmatically to a political philosophy that even its author was unable to explain. In
short, their only two arguments for their political position are to rebel against the possibility of man
free from a state not an argument or to cling to the belief that Rand could not have been wrong
about such an important point. Unable to refer to their own sanction and the reason of their own
mind to explain how an Objective government is possible, they substitute the words and sanction of
Rand for their own. Blank out.
A few of the more honest types have attempted to outline how they believe an Objective
government might work, and I applaud their efforts if not their results, Some have talked about
setting a clear and defined moral principles concerning the use of force. They speak of setting
objective precedent to follow and define the actions of future courts/law enforcement. They speak
of public proof to establish objectivity. But these all lack the same thing the how. How will a
definition be set in stone to assure it is objective and unchanging? Objective according to whom?
Set in stone how, when men will always be involved, some of which may come along with a
different opinion? Establishing that a precedent is objective according to what measure? Objectively
publicly proven how? Blank out.
Many of these attempts are very well written, and, if a government was necessary in the lives of
men, these systems would be far more tolerable than most. But they all have a single thing in
common; they are arbitrary and non-objective. Since the basis of the entire political philosophy is
predicated upon the concept that men need moral laws that are objective and they must be enforced
objectively, any attempt to propose a system of government that sets the rules for other men must
fulfill this single requirement first it must be objective. If it is not, such a government becomes a

floating abstraction; a concept detached from existents.

There are three things required for a truly objective government; objective laws, objective men to
make them, and a way to objectively enforce them. How would these happen?
All governments are made up of men. While in the earlier part of the essay we already established
that men, unable to have use their reason to have the discretion on when to use force, do not
suddenly obtain this judgment as the collective of a government, we will accept, for this portion,
that such men exist with the objective/collective ability to do so. If so, how are they discovered?
How are they put into a position of authority? How do we determine they are objective men?
The reader was earlier reminded that the worst kind of second hander, according to Rand, is the man
who seeks power. In all of her characters, none of the protagonists ever sought power over anything
more than their own lives. The greatest example of the man who sought power was Gail Wynand,
who ended the novel alone and internally destroyed. Other characters sought power or influence
over others for their own personal gain, like Peter Keating and James Taggart, suffered similar fates.
Keating became a shell once his sanction through others was removed, and Taggart went insane as
he realized he had destroyed any vestiges of good in himself in his quest to retain power and
prestige. In contrast, none of Rands heroes sought power over other men. Howard Roarke wished
only to be left alone to build. Hank Reardon only wanted to be free to produce. Dagney Taggart
simply wanted to not be impeded when running her railroad. Even John Galt, the penultimate of the
Randian hero, the most objective man ever created, refused to rule the government when he was
directly offered the opportunity.
If John Galt, the most objective man ever, refused to rule, and in fact, removed his sanction from
those who claimed the right to, how would these objective men be found to run a Objective
government? The very nature of a fully objective man would be to live for himself. He would be
seeking his rational happiness as the moral purpose of his life. Any thoughts about decreeing
objectivity for other men, and enforcing it on them would necessitate he was not an objective man!
A Roarke, a Reardon, a Dagney Taggart would never accept the title of Objective President and set
rules for the lives of others. They would laugh at the thought. An Ellsworth Toohey, however, would
accept. The nature of an objective man dismisses him from desire to rule others in any fashion. He
would be asking more of them than they would be willing to give, which is in direct contradiction

to Rands fundamental law of self sanction: I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never
live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Even if there were such fully objective men, even if they were not by the very definition of Rand
second-handers for seeking power, even if they were not the anti-heroes in all her novels, we are
still left with the how. How are they put in place? How are they chosen? By what litmus test will
they be shown to be objective? Governments are made of men, and those men must be selected.
Since these are the men who will determine the objective laws for everyone, it is necessary that we
assure they are qualified as objective. How is this done? How do they acquire objective office?
Do the proponents of objective government propose that they be elected, as politicians are today? If
so, would it not require an objective populace to determine the men are objective? If elections are
held, and one man is selected based upon a higher percentage of the vote, we have already
determined we have a populace who has differing opinions about which men are objective in their
platforms. If the stances of the candidates were actually objective in their ability to be implemented
would not he win every vote? Or, if a population is not objective, how will they choose an objective
candidate?
If a population is objective enough to choose the objective candidate, why is such a candidate
needed at all? You would have a fully objective people who would not then need the state. And if a
population is not objective, how then can they come to a decision on which man is objective?
So I ask again, believers in objective government how? Is he elected? Is he appointed (and by
what authority are the men who do so appointing him)? Is his name chosen out of Ayn Rands
favorite Sunday hat? How? Blank out.
This impossibility alone is enough to show the contradiction of objective government in reality, but
it is the same with laws. Even if we have managed to traverse the rainbow on our unicorn and select
an objective government made of objective men who are somehow not second-handers for
immediately violating Rands own tenets of seeking power, it will still be necessary to determine
what laws men abide under that are objective, and that they are objectively enforced.
How is this done? How do we find objective men to write objective laws and objectively enforce

them? By whose authority? By what standard? By what objective process?

Blank out.
Conclusion
Reality is objective, and each thing in reality has a nature. This nature has characteristics. No
amount of wishing will change the nature of reality A is A. If, as Rand pointed, out a
contradiction cannot exist, then once a person discovers one in his belief system, it must be
examined and resolved. If not, he is blanking out by willfully refusing to adjust his thinking to
reality.
It has been shown that the nature of man is to be free to use his own rational judgment in the pursuit
of his happiness. To do this a man must be free from coercion. Rand has stated that an Objective
Government would be one that was free of coercion, and only use retaliatory force. She then goes
on to state The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power
is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injurythe threat of property
expropriation, imprisonment, or death.
A government cant be both responsive and coercive at the same time. It has been demonstrated that
by prohibiting competition in the areas that a state claims authority, it becomes a coercive monopoly
on force by its very existence. This makes all governments a government that initiates the
employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion
against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality.
The nature of man and the nature of governments are contradictory, and Objective Government is
impossible in reality.
Objective government is a floating abstraction.