Episode 2 was primarily a list of all of the possible edge cases for which it could be difficult to determine who the initiator of force is or whether or not both parties possess the rights from which the prohibition on initiation of force arises. In some cases, the narrator applied a lazy interpretation of the prohibition as evidence that it would not produce an ethical result. The narrator summarizes that the prohibition on the initiation of force is good, but would require "mental gymnastics" in some of the more complex cases. The narrator equates the need to apply reason to make the principle work in difficult situations with a deficiency in the rule. This is a either a logical contradiction or an instance of context dropping, Objectivism is above all about the primacy of reason. The fact that a principle may require a significant amount of hard mental effort to determine the most ethical action is entirely consistent within the context of the philosophy. The philosophy asks only that one do the reasoning necessary to realize that initiating force is a violation of the natural rights of a reasonable being, and then asks that one do the reasoning necessary to figure out how to translate that principle into ethical action. Objectivism allows for Objectivists to be incorrect in whatever they decide to do in these hard cases, as long as they follow through and maintain responsibility for their decisions.
