Exactly.

A competition of governments? What do you mean, exactly?

I'm aware of that. I never said the NAP was the total absence of violence or force. What I'm saying is that sometimes a government must use force in initiation, not just in retaliation. A government which uses force only in retaliation would become incapable of preforming its essential functions, and therefore cease to be a government. Yet this is exactly what the NAP demands of government. Thus, the NAP leads to anarchy.

Well now, that's a bit insulting, don't you think? I generally try to avoid insulting other posters here as much as possible, and debate only by attacking ideas and arguments. Very rarely do I ever verbally attack the person making the arguments. I would suggest that you learn to do the same if you want to be taken seriously.

Anyway, since you did provide one legitimate argument before unleashing your angry deluge of insults, I will address that. You claim that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not based on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), yet even a cursory reading of her work demonstrates that that isn't true. The NAP was a very large part of her philosophy, so much so that she even proclaimed that it was the basic political principle of her ethics.

–––––––––––––––––––
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force."

~ Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, page 36
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/retali...
–––––––––––––––––––

Tell me, in light of this particular passage, how do you support your claim that Objectivism is not based on the NAP?

What about the person who does extremely violent acts so as to subdue all others and place them in a state of fear? Is there anything that "forbids" them from doing that?

OK, technically you don't work FOR any government. But you work closely WITH government. Not a criticism, it's the nature of the beast.

fyi - kh and her hubby db work in the patent protection field. We've had innumerable discussions relating to IP protection.

Absolutely. And with enforcement there is governance, thus, helidrvr's anarchist state fails.