Modern definitions of "arbitrary" are a corruption of the words original meaning. When I say arbitrary, I mean a threshold (or value judgement) is selected based on reason and evidence for a goal's attainment. It doesn't matter how many people are involved or share the goal. You say "government", which is a group, maybe the subjects of the government are in agreement with those in voting majority/minority power, maybe not. A thing is arbitrary, specifically, because people have different goals, not because of differences in evidence availability or deductive work. Although in reality, differences in information/evidence availability, deducted/accepted premises, and conclusions, can also result in different conclusions... I specifically call something as arbitrary because differing thresholds/policies result from differing goals/preferences.
If we had the same goal, evidence, and went through the same reasoning process then we would agree on a threshold (or value judgement) (come to the same arbitrary conclusions).
It is a issue in Objectivist factions imo that the members think they all have the same goal. To live man qua man right? We all share the same ideal of what a man should be, right?
Value judgements are easier in a free market, most things can be estimated in value. Thresholds on the other hand, for things like negligence, abuse, are determined by subjective _goals_/culture. Over evolutionary scales, and through mental development in short term, do we want to nurture people to become fragile pansy men or reliable ballsy men?
Is it neglect to not take your retard premature baby to the hospital for $10 million in hospital bills for it to live on machines until all of its core failing organs can be fixed/replaced with health ones, so that it can live for the rest of its life spoon fed in a wheel chair with diapers? Insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors would be financially motivated to say yes.