Good point, thanks Dr. Casey. However, that doesn’t really clear up the whole argument. Let me represent it without the equivocation.
(1) Rand objects to the initiation of force because humans have inalienable rights.
(2) Rand permits retaliatory force against these inalienable rights.
(3) 1 and 2 are either inconsistent or incoherent. If the rights are inalienable, then upon what basis is retaliatory force that alienates them permitted? If the rights are not inalienable, then the statements are incoherent.
I did not intend for the equivocation to slip in the first time; it was due to my wording. The argument above is more along the lines of what the critic intended