"All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it."

~Ayn Rand; The Nature of Government~

While this is a clear and concise understanding of law, in several of her writings Rand makes the mistake of contrasting "objective law" with "non-objective law" and in doing so lends credence to the notion that any legislation that comes down the pike is law. However, in science we understand a law to be statements that describe, predict and often explain why a phenomena behaves as it does in nature. In this regard Rand has come fairly close in describing law and it is only her willingness to equate non-objective legislation, or decree as law that creates a problem.

"When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim, when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, fear becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all—and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them."

~Vast Quicksands - The Objectivist Newsleter July 1963, 25~

There is no such thing as "non-objective law" only non-objective understandings of law. The dictators flourish when the non-objective understandings of law become "common sense". When bogus legislation is treated as law, by enforcer and the enforced alike the dictator has achieved one of their ends. If we are to objectively know the law, as Rand points out, we must know what constitutes a crime. A crime requires a victim and a victim requires a right that has been disparaged or denied. The law then, is not a set of rules to create social control, the law is unalienable rights.

Continued...