First off, I am new to objectivism. I have been getting interested in it recently and I find that I can agree with it for most part. But there is something I have been wondering about.
On the wiki of this website, on this page, it says:
Not true, Objectivism does in fact support government with a monopoly on the use of force. This government, however, is only to use force against those who initiate its use to violate others' rights. The three tasks of government in this function are (as stated by Ayn Rand): "...the police, to protect men from criminalsâ€”the armed services, to protect men from foreign invadersâ€”the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws."
Seems fair, but I see a problem with this however.
Suppose there is a hypothetical society with an objectivist government. There is a group of people who decide to conspire and grow very powerful; so powerful that they outdo the power of the government.
Technically, the government cannot act against this development, since this group hasn't actually initiated any force! They've only armed themselves to the tooth and that's it.
This group can now freely commit crimes and violence against the people. The government should now act, but is now in fact powerless against these mobs, because all they could previously do is sit and watch how they become outnumbered.
I have been thinking about this and see no reason why this cannot happen. Is this really a problem of objectivism or did I misunderstand something?