derosa8Dr. Casey, I will await your response, but of course you may respond at your leisure; that sounds like quite the crazy day.
Jerryb225: Thanks for your input. However, the critic is not arguing that it’s unethical to permit retaliatory force. Rather, he was saying that Rand’s foundation of Man’s Rights (that they are inherent in his nature) provides no logical basis for permitting retaliatory force. Here is Rand’s Essay, Man’s Rights: http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/docLib/20120822_Ayn_Rand-_Man_s_Rights_1_.pdf
The critic’s main point was that Rand’s foundation of for the non-aggression principle is inconsistent with our concept of justice. So, it appears all you have done with your example is reaffirmed the critic’s position. In other words, since retaliatory force is the only way to provide justice, then it ought to be permitted. The critic would agree with you, but he would say Rand gives us no logical basis for reaching that conclusion.