Let's imagine someone breaks into my neighbor's house, I round them up, give them a fair trial, and lock them up in my basement for a year. No different from what the actual government would do. Just like a legitimate government, I have not initiated force. At this point, two things would happen:
1. The government would initiate force against me to protect their own monopoly on the business of rounding up burglars, giving them a fair trial, and locking them up.
2. The government would let me continue unimpeded, at which point they relinquish their monopoly on the legitimate use of force and cease to be a government. They are simply one of many competing retributive justice agencies, and we have anarchy.
As you can see, Rand's philosophy is not "logically consistent"--it comes to vastly contradictory conclusions.
1. The government would initiate force against me to protect their own monopoly on the business of rounding up burglars, giving them a fair trial, and locking them up. 2. The government would let me continue unimpeded, at which point they relinquish their monopoly on the legitimate use of force and cease to be a government. They are simply one of many competing retributive justice agencies, and we have anarchy.
As you can see, Rand's philosophy is not "logically consistent"--it comes to vastly contradictory conclusions.