Ok here is a simple counter-example to "objectivism".

Rand believed very strongly in the absolute nature of property rights. She also believed very strongly in people's right to agree to any sort of contract they desire. She also stated very strongly that government should not regulate business. She also seemed to desire a minimalist or possibly no government.

So lets do what she does and imagine a hypothetical community. Libertarians (with whom I sympathize and have at times voted for) successfully have overtaken Wyoming with its tiny population swamped by libertarian immigrants. They secede from the union and make each man self-governing. It is a paradise for the free exercise of liberty and a few communities of "Randians" have sprouted up.

We will start the problems start off small out of generosity. If there satisfactory solutions for them they will get more difficult.

Lets say a few hundred Randians live around a lovely mountain lake. They all go about their lives and stay out of each others way. With modern technology and the market the US provides they are able to pursue the jobs they would like to and are not tied down with providing basic necessities.

Then one day Bob decides he wants to become a tanner. He is going to convert his house in the middle of the residential area into a tannery. The noise is incessant (he used machines to help stretch and cut the leather), and the smell is disgusting. It will ruin the whole neighborhood for scores of people and waste much valuable investment in the residential nature of the area.

Should the people step in and abrogate his individual rights to do with his property as he would like? If so aren't the majority trampling on his rights (something Ayn seems to expressly forbid)? If the majority wants to stop him how will they do it? Will they ask him? What if he says no?

If they are not allowed to stop him why wouldn't they simply reform the community as Randian except this one rule, "No tanneries in the middle of residential neighborhoods"?

How would you Mr. or Mrs. Randian suggest we resolve this situation, or absent that how would you think Mrs. Rand would want it resolved?

There are more problems on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy :)

Everyone who can afford to moves and Voila', you have your first Randian slum.

Randians and other libertarian types have come up with a wide range of creative solutions to what appear to be intractable problems. Yours is a typical one that has been explored many times. Here's my shot at the Randian approach.

The rest of the group would exercise their own property rights and try to come up with a way to persuade Bob to stop. Some options:

The owner of the road to Bob's property (let's assume that Bob does not own his own road) could see that the value of his road will drop precipitously if Bob becomes his only customer. In the interest of maintaining a wide customer base, he could refuse to transport Bob's supplies.

Other vendors, such as the local grocer, could do the same. Residents could threaten a boycott if the vendors do not see the wisdom of cutting Bob off on their own.

Similarly, they could hire Bob's workers away from him, making his business untenable.

The other residents could pay Bob to cease and desist. Bob may not be reasonable, of course, and may not take a fair price. They could also pay him to install noise barriers, exhaust treatment systems, or other measures that would benefit them.

The other residents could find other ways to make Bob's life unpleasant without violating his rights. They could refuse to interact with him at all, pay his customers to switch to other suppliers, or go into competition with him.

If Bob can still make money even under all of this pressure, then it is right that a tannery should be there, and not a bunch of houses. The rightness is established by the capacity to make money. Your assumption that the existing houses are the right state of affairs is faulty. There is no guarantee that any given asset will always retain value; heroic workers must use their innate abilities to achieve what they desire, and never take for granted that others will not do the same.

"Yours is a typical one that has been explored many times. Here's my shot at the Randian approach."

I started out with a very easy problem. There are much harder ones.

"The owner of the road to Bob's property (let's assume that Bob does not own his own road) could see that the value of his road will drop precipitously if Bob becomes his only customer. In the interest of maintaining a wide customer base, he could refuse to transport Bob's supplies."

So the owner of the road gets to decide what business every single lot on that street runs? Boy are they a free and happy community. Does he also get to extort them for most of their profits? Can he steal their good when they are on his street? If not why not? What is their recourse if he does? Sure you could claim they could move, but what if he has waited until there is several million dollars of investment along his road? I suppose they could start building a new road, but there might only be one sensible course, or he might lower his rates the second they complete it thus wasting a huge amount of everyone's time and effort. He might also collude with the owner of the other road.

"Other vendors, such as the local grocer, could do the same. Residents could threaten a boycott if the vendors do not see the wisdom of cutting Bob off on their own."

So basically this community is a small war of all against all where any small infraction leads to boycotts. What if instead of opening up a tannery Bob simply wanted to marry a black woman. Would his neighbors be equally right to demand a boycott then? It doesn't seem to matter if they are right or not since they can legally resort to attempting to stomp all over each others rights whenever they see fit.

"The other residents could pay Bob to cease and desist. Bob may not be reasonable, of course, and may not take a fair price. They could also pay him to install noise barriers, exhaust treatment systems, or other measures that would benefit them."

So now I could make a living off my neighbors by threatening to do things they don't like. Great! We have led to a whole new easy ways to run an extortion racket.

"If Bob can still make money even under all of this pressure, then it is right that a tannery should be there, and not a bunch of houses. The rightness is established by the capacity to make money. Your assumption that the existing houses are the right state of affairs is faulty. "

I am assuming putting a tannery there is a bad idea because it clearly is bad idea given the preferences of his neighbors. But Randianism doesn't have a solution for how to spread these preferences around. Sure people could spend all day dickering over compensation regarding their actions, but then very little actual work will get done.

You also create constant game theory problems. Someone who is a huge asshole will do well in this community. Someone who will push every conflict right to the brink. Someone who just wants to be left alone (sounds like libertarians!) will struggle if they are not out their constantly threatening and dealing to ensure they maintain their rights.

I think the vast majority of people would simply rather have zoning laws (And most other aspects of government as we go from problem to problem).

Ok here is a slightly harder problem. Now a neighboring libertarian community has decided that community 1 is out-competing it. They are a much larger but poorer community with less valuable skills. SOme of their people are starving. These people begin to move to community 1 and commit crimes. Particularly a variety of thefts. A few of them are caught but mostly the thieves are successful (just like in the real world). What are the Randians to do?

You asked, I answered. Are the solutions perfect? Hardly.

Of course, since our current system is crime-free (at least, they all get caught and punished) and allows no unfair advantages, we needn't worry about it.

One point you overlooked in your point-by-point analysis is that there are many options. You treated each as if were the only one. Also, many of the options are available under current laws, such as boycotting an interracial couple. Nothing under law prevents that here in the Land of the Free©.

If your point is that a Randian system is unstable and incompatible with human nature, well, so's every theoretical system. Not much shown there. But the interesting thing, to a non-fanatic, is that for all its flaws, a little analysis from the Randian perspective can provide insight into workable alternatives to what we've got. You don't have to rip out everything and start over; incremental changes can incorporate good ideas, whatever their source.

Oh yeah, regarding the thievery problem, you forget that Randians are heroic individuals. They shoot the thieves, and trespassers, too, just to be sure.

No one was arguing against incremental changes but Rand.

Did you see me say I vote libertarian occasionally? I just find so many "libertarians" live in some fantasy land where they fixate on all the problems inherent on the current model and fail to recognize that many of them arise as a consequence of sub-ideal solutions to even larger problems.

Is giving poor people unemployment etc. ideal? No obviously not. But it is better than having them rioting constantly and needing to institute a police state. Randians have all the political nuance and laudability of Stalinists, or Utopian Anarchists. They fixate on one virtue in a political system and sacrifice everything else including reason upon its altar.

As far as there being a crime problem now. Crime is at the lowest level in the history of the world. I don't think you can really use that as an argument against the status quo.