Thank you for such a thougtful and erudite Reply. Excuse my terseness, but you have presented a lot of ground to cover. (My spellchecker has disappeared, so there may be some typos.)

It is my position that 'free' markets are of practical benefit in many areas of the economic realm: where they provide practical benefit they should be allowed; where they do not they should be subordinated to the greater good. The existence of unions is not prohibited by real justice; the existence of the monetary paradigm I have developed does not preclude acting in the political process to achieve other goals for society, such as regulating markets where they should be regulated.

Rand's "objectivism" is based on beliefs, primarily a belief that liberty is the source of justice. Real justice is based on the observation that human beings have no choice but to effect choices--which does lead to the maximum liberty that coexisting human beings can share simultaneously.

The inescapable fact is that becoming organized is inevitable for social beings, which we humans are. For us it requires some organizational concept. For non-civilized groups that has been 'one for all and all for one'. For the history of civilization the default concept has been 'rule by the most ruthless'.

Alternative organizational concepts can be--have been--called attempts at justice. Up to now those have always been based on beliefs, either sacral/theological or secualr/ideological. Beliefs engender "contests of power" (from Foucault). No idea of justice ever proffered has held that contests of power are the source of justice.

It has been my position that real justice must be achieved justly: through rational persuasion--and only that. Fortunately, Liberalism has given us the (just) democratic political process (because a belief in equality engenders the ethic of mutual respect, which is what really governs 'democcracy'), which makes achieving justice justly possible.