What about might makes right? That is antithetical to the basic concepts of not initiating force. But there is another objectivist concept in that reality exists.

You have the right to enjoy your property free from the interference of your neighbors -- at least so long as you don't interfere with their rights -- which can involve some complex issues. Nevertheless if you are peacefully sitting in your house and your neighbors gather on the street, break down your door and distribute your stuff among them, there is probably little you can do to stop them, especially if they are as well armed as you are. You might say they have no right to your stuff -- but it's gone anyway.

So we have a government and police that you can call to protect your property. Unfortunately, it is really no different than the mob of your neighbors. It has written rules and limits which it may or may not follow but the bottom line is that if enough of your "neighbors" decide that the government can come and take your stuff, your right to enjoy it doesn't stop them.

So we have the interesting situation where we can have a coherent philosophy as to what the rights of individuals are, and we can honor that philosophy, but unless we convince a sufficient number of our neighbors to honor that philosophy, we will devolve into "might makes right" or in a more civilized phrase "majority rules".

This is the same dilemma that faces anyone who wants to form a real "gulch". You can gather together all the people who agree with you and sign an agreement to honor objectivist principles, but what about the next generation, or the next? If the majority no longer believes...