" Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

What a fine testament to the bankruptcy of academic philosophy in the 20th century. 

1. Rand is not hostile towards the state. That is why the anarchists reject her politics. Rand unequivocally advocates a government and demands that that government be the sole manager of the use of physical force. 

2. Her hostility to anarchism is due to the fact that in order for men to be truly free from coercion, the moral use of physical force in defense against the immoral initiation of physical force for gain must be objectified — the rights to be defended, the laws to be enforced, who will be doing the enforcing, when, where, and how, plus all of the pertinent procedures of adjudication, punishment, and restitution must be knowable up front. That is the job only a neutral third party institution subject to checks and balances can achieve.

Anarchy differs from that by allowing the subjective use of physical force in defense against the initiation of force. The use of force in such a society would be unknowable, unpredictable and uncontrollable. That is why Rand opposed anarchy. The accusation that this is "ill-thought out and unsystematic" is nothing more than a cheap shot from — to put it politely — an ill-informed hack padding pages with his own self-nurtured ignorance. 

Rand's opposition to taxation is also consistent with the central principle:

No person may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by its owner 

Taxation is inherently coercive. It consists of majorities enlisting the power of the state to forcibly take values from minorities to use and distribute for their own purposes. Taxation is indistinguishable from any other form of theft. What is ill-thought out about that?

The myopic writer was unable to see, as Rand did that the only political issue of overriding importance to the lives of the members of a society is the issue of force vs. freedom. Every moral and political principle of her philosophy opts for the latter over the former. Every opponent of hers must inevitably opt for the initiation of force for gain in one or more instances in order to disagree with her.

"Emergent behaviors are behaviors that exist in a collective that don't exist in any one individual."

If the individuals are not doing the behaving, and you admit that the group is not a behaving entity, who or what is the actor in "emergent behaviors"?

------------------

"I do not see how she addresses human fallibility. I do not see any framework for improving government in her philosophy that takes into account human fallibility"

If you hold your life as your highest value and recognize that the quality and quantity of that life depends on choosing the actions that will fulfill those goals in accordance with the nature of what you are — a human being — then independence from the fallibility of other minds is a high priority. The moral mandate to sustain your autonomy in making your own choices and applying them through your own chosen actions addresses the issue of human fallibility in the context of ethics. 

Politics is the extension of ethics in the context of an individual's life into the context of individuals living together in a society. The extension of the ethical mandate to sustain individual autonomy is recognized in politics by the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Since the only threat to those rights is physical force, a moral government will seek to eradicate the use of force in human interrelationships. Therefore, the ban on initiated force for gain addresses human fallibility and provides a framework for dealing with it morally in the context of politics. 

----------------------

There are two separate answers in two separate contexts to funding a government without taxation. The first has been amply addressed. If the initiation of force for gain is immoral, then taxation is immoral. The only code that can support taxation is the one that starts, "the end justifies the means." Where's the morality in that?

The second context is the concrete, logistical question of how it would be organized. This question is not a valid question at all until the issue of morality is settled. If taxation is coercion and therefore immoral, a sufficient answer to the second question would be, "any way the citizens at that time want to finance government so long as no coercion is used." The option to give up and resort back to taxation cannot be labeled as "practical" after it has been recognized as immoral. The immoral is never practical under any circumstances.

And given the long time span before any country could ever be free enough that the question would be pressing, it is ludicrous to try from here to define precise methods. I think about it occasionally, and as you see I make suggestions. But the reactions are always the same, because those who read them are judging them in an entirely unrelated context, today. 

The whole world takes coercion and their own victimization for granted. Rand calls that the "sanction of the victim." Who among you grew up believing in and striving for your own freedom from coercion? By what standard do you persist in advocating coercion of each other by the state in your name? Why is the coercion you advocate any better than Hitler's or Stalin's just because it is smaller? And how does your coercion translate into "justice is virtue" if Rand's antipathy to coercion translates in your mind to "injustice is virtue". You can start be defining justice and by taking a position of the question of freedom vs. force instead of just throwing rocks.

"I do sense an anger in you directed at me, but perhaps I'm merely reading into what you've written something that is not there."

I can sense that too from a different perspective. First off I am easily angered by comments that merely characterize a person or idea without following up with an explanation to back it up, especially if I or someone else points that out and the commenter keeps on doing it. If there is a lot of that, it will infect comments to those who are not doing that. 

On the other hand I remind myself of those times when I am trying to figure out some complex software and I tell my wife, "the kids that wrote these instructions have been in computers so long, they have long since forgotten what they didn't know when they started. I am no doubt guilty of that when it comes to these ideas. 

I have been an Objectivist for 45 years and during that time I constantly challenged the ideas and my understanding of them and my ability to explain them in simple terms to others. It has never disappointed me, and I have not yet been able to prove Rand wrong on substantive principles of the philosophy. 

And that is one of the most valuable lessons I learned from her. In the long-run, it is only the identifications and principles — the ideas — that matter. It may seem simple, but it is the most difficult thing to fully grasp and implement.

In that light, whether I appear angry or not should not matter to anyone but me. You should not let that distract you from the task at hand: judging the ideas and their relevance to your life. Sometimes I like the fact that the aggressive debating style of Objectivists or the quirky behavior of Rand and her early circle of fans, or flaunting the word selfishness serves one valuable purpose. The higher the barrier to those considering her ideas, the more genuine will be the persuasion when it comes. It is a weir that filters out the flotsam while clearing a path for the honest minds who are focused on the content.