A, of course. But Dagny was not the real initiator; the guard was guilty of the oppression, as he had a hand in holding Galt prisoner.

I'll rephrase my original question: If A tells B he is going to punch him in the face and B responds by punching A in the face, which one has initiated the use of physical force in the light of Galt's speech?

Oh, no? One has as much right to defend himself against a threat as if it had already been carried into execution.

The guard had gotten himself into a job where he was committing violence by being there, and holding Galt prisoner, hadn't he?

Yes, a threat gives just as much right to retaliate as if the violence had already been committed. In any-
thing, more.

Wearing a Trump hat is not initiating violence, if someone initiates violence against you then you are in your rights to respond.

So if I go to an ANTIFA demonstration with a conspicuous "Red Hat" on am I initiating violence or just looking for trouble. If I "finish" the trouble when it finds me am I the cause or simply defending my rights?

Yes, I watched some videos on their shock when apprehended. There was a college student for example, who removed anti-abortion signs then was surprised when she was arrested.

Maybe the left should educate these "warriors" that they still live in a society of laws and even if it is OK for them to live in anarchy, the country is not there yet, thank God.

There was violence initiated in my back yard this a.m. My Shih Zhou (Lionel) found a possum in the Canna lilies and came out unscratched. Every dog in the neighborhood joined in the barking spree! Last seen the possum had the pedal to the metal.

as all else in life anything can and possibly will occur.
as humans our mere existence is predicated on the use of force. the social contract we choose to live under or are born in defines the APPROPRIATE levels of force and whence it may be used. posting generalities about situations is is simply wargaming and unless based on the reality we inhabit means nothing

The guard was a willing enforcer for a government that had become corrupt and tyrannical long before he faced Dagny. So whether he knew the particulars of what was going on in the room he was guarding was irrelevant. She gave him the choice of obeying her at gunpoint or being shot. From her point of view, she would have been risking Galt's life if she had allowed the guard to alert his superiors about her rescue attempt. I would say her actions were a justified use of defensive or retaliatory force.

threatening is definitely forfeiture of individual rights...

Yes but I don't remember Ayn Rand giving a clue as to whether the guard knew that the others were employing violence in torturing John Galt. Do you?

It seems that Ayn Rand didn't foresee the amount of legally own firearms in the US and the conceal carry permits sanctioned by many states. Unfortunately, when you have the state of Washington initiating gun control laws and hamstringing the police from doing their job you have Antia creating violence. If that were to happen here in Az, the attacker would be laying in the street with a bullet hole in him or her.

I served on three County Grand Juries and I can assure you I know what I am talking about. At least in my county, in Texas!

If someone is threatening you and you personally feel they are capable of fulfilling their threats, I see nothing wrong with showing them your .38 Chief Special and ordering them to leave your presence at the count of three (with witness present).

Wasn't the guard part of a group that was using force to imprison John Galt?

Me too (agree with brucejc04 and you). That's the only sane response, it seems to me. Otherwise, I'd have to wait until you actually hit or otherwise injured me at which time it might be too late (perhaps you broke my leg, etc.)

This has become an issue in dealing with the social justice warriors, because they have been taught to equate offensive (to them) speech to physical violence, and have been told it's OK to assault the person who engages in "violent" speech. It's interesting to see the shocked look on their faces when apprehended and told they've committed a crime.

So, does he wait until the perp stabs him before he retaliates? Assuming he can't avoid the conflict.

I'm sorry, but if a deranged or violent person approaches, and refuses to back off, particularly if he is armed, I have the natural right to defend myself. I'm not waiting until I'm injured.

Seems there are a lot of attempts to introduce a gray line suggesting that unless and until another individual has caused harm or damage the victim has no right to respond. If outnumbered and the gang is threatening violence to wait would not be prudent to ensure survival. A recent news story about an elderly man in upstate New York had shot and killed to home invaders landed him in jail for using an unlicensed gun. No consideration given for the circumstances leading up to the killing, the only thing the state was concerned with was a weapon it had not authorized. There may be circumstances where someone reacted too soon, that is something the defending individual must determine, no one else.

So how should someone confronted with an intimidation robbery respond? What if the would be robber is carrying a holstered handgun? Is implied physical force the same as physical force?

responding to violations of individual rights is morally correct...anyone or group who violates individuals rights voids any claims their own individual rights...otherwise individual rights are meaningless...

I agree!

There is a difference between force and violence. If I am standing in the doorway so that you can't leave the room, I have initiated force -- even though I haven't touched you. I am using the threat of violence to force you to remain.

You are perfectly free to respond to this force by knocking me down as you leave.