jerry3643Hi John D let me see if I can shed some light on it for you, and this may or may not be a total refutation but I do think it’s valid in that it shows that if the critics reasoning is valid then it leads to ridiculous consequences.
Rand said that when force it initiated or threatened that ethics goes out the window (ethics ends where a gun begins I think is her quote) and that’s why it’s ok to defend yourself.
If ethics doesn’t end where a gun begins then we would hold bank tellers legally accountable when a bank robber puts a gun to her head and demands that she puts the money in the bag. Now who in their right mind would say the bank teller is aiding in the crime of bank robbery? ( barring evidence that she conspired of coarse) No one. So If it’s valid that one cannot defend themselves from an aggressor because they would be violating the other persons rights, then it should also be valid to throw the bank teller in jail for aiding in a bank robbery because she violated the rights of the owners of the money as a means of defending herself.
lastly I don’t remember Rand used the word inalienable in her writings when talking about rights. But I could be wrong about that.