But if that is the conclusion, then why are we to believe that the final arbiter on matters of justice that Objectivists propose has itself arrived at the proper definitions?
It seems we are here, once again, expected of to blindly believe in the ‘supermen’ type qualities of a final arbiter (i.e. government), consisting of wiser men than ourselves imposing the one true justice on the rest of us against our wills, for our own good. And since this final arbiter can, just as current governments, be described as a ‘monopoly of force’ we will arrive at the same problems that we’ve arrived at with all existing democracies.
After all, what to do if that final arbiter turns out to be quite arbitrary in both its conclusions as well as its policies?
To call for a revolution? Resistance has sure worked for the South in the Civil War, hasn’t it? And if such a monopoly has all the tanks, the aircraft carriers, the bombers and the nukes (as indeed it would, for if it didn’t such a final arbiter could easily be ignored) i could also wish any uprising a good luck and good night.
And why should we even think that a Revolution would be justified in the first place? Didn’t we hear from Bidinotto that man is basically incapable of arriving at proper conclusions about justice? So on what basis would this revolution be started, and by whom?

I have the sneaky suspicion that it would at all times be Objectivists who would be needed to inform us dullards on anything and to take seat in such a government, as far as Objectivists are concerned. A pretty self-serving view of government that would be.