Swerve of Shore

Excellent question about the NAZI’s. They clearly weren’t Left, but were they Socialist? Although it is something I would like to study, I have no answer. If you have thoughts on it, I would love to hear them.

Thank you, Nicky, for that excellent post. Do you personally think that 4.7% of GDP is "about right"? If my understanding is correct that Rand Paul advocates significant cuts, where do you disagree with him? And, oso, thank you for clarifying Ayn Rand's views on taking action against the Soviet Bloc. That is exactly what I was referring to.

In response to my statement "But, although she is the creator, Rand is not the living embodiment of Objectivist ethics." I was hoping folks would address this question, so let me say it more clearly. I did not intend to say anything about Rand's personal ethics. I have not studied her personal life and have no opinion there. The characters in Rand's books clearly show what sort of person would be a perfect embodiment of ethics. My statement was about the development of the Objectivist philosophy. On Rand's death, I would assume, Objectivism did not become fossilized. Rather, it continues to be developed by other thinkers and writers as well. I would suspect everyone in this forum agrees with this. A more interesting question to me is what those in this forum feel about what Rand did put into writing. Do you consider it infallible - like many Christian's view of the bible?

LOL. Speaking carefully, as a Progressive, I would not call Norway socialist. I would say there are many socialists in Norway, including in government, and that Norway has many socialist features. Spiral Architect's post makes clear that clear-thinking Objectivists also consider Norway to have strong socialist features ... and are highly critical of its tax and state-ownership apects. I am very pleased that those posting on this thread do not throw the "socialist" epithet around lightly. I was particularly impressed by the link to the Heritage Foundation's work: there was nothing knee-jerk about that. In any cases, Norway is clearly more socialist than Obama, but I have heard many Republicans as well as Objectivists elsewhere in this forum use that epithet for him.

Actually, electricity was the main "mistake" I made in the thread. The rest are "points of discussion" and "areas of disagreement". (I distinguish the two because others on this board have convinced me of their viewpoint on some of the points of discussion.) If you prefer to only communicate with wholly like-minded people, then by all means go ahead and be rude and dismissive of everyone you disagree with. As for me, if you were the only other person posting in these forums, I would leave the "sandbox" for you to play in alone. But there are more than enough other participants with whom a respectful conversation is possible to keep me coming back.

Actually, socialism is a far vaguer term than communism, so it is hard to state anything definitively. Wikipedia says this about socialism: "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism." If you prefer not to consider "social democrats" to be "truly" socialist, that is your perogative. If you want to talk about Marx's definitions of socialism and communism, here is the Wikipedia discussion of "Socialism (Marxist)": "In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations, that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism." You are quite right that the Marxist definition of "socialism" is much "heavier" than the popular definition, but it is still "lighter" than the Marxist definition of "communism".

I am very interested in learning Forum participants' views on U.S. military spending (as well as any official Objectivist position, if there is such a thing). This topic: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23115&hl=%2Bmilitary+%2Bindustrial discusses U.S. militarism in general. But I am interested in specifics about what the federal budget should look like. I have heard that U.S. military spending is greater than the next 7 countries combined and think that is obscene. There is no possibility that that level of spending could only be about defense - obviously it is largely about aggression. I have heard numbers like a 50% reduction thrown out. I believe Ralph Nadar used this number - not sure what Rand Paul has said. This is clearly an area where a robust multi-party system could result in coalitions that move the country away from the nightmare uniformity of both major parties. I also do not know the detailed components of proposed defense reductions. Components of spending worth discussing are: advanced weaponry, foreign bases, standing army, retirement benefits. There are surely others. One last tidbit: I heard an interview with Ayn Rand where she argued that any military action against the Soviet Bloc would have been acceptable as an action of self-defense. Do folks think the threat posed by Islamic extremism is comparable?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway: "The economy of Norway is a developed mixed economy with heavy state-ownership in strategic areas of the economy. ... As socialism became part of the mainstream labor movement, it also became part of the mainstream political discourse." It is true that Norway is not a communist country, but its socialist movement and features are among the most pronounced in Europe. Ayn Rand would certainly have considered socialist and, I suspect, most of the Objectivists in this forum would as well. Yes, it is a democracy, but there is a thing called "democratic socialism". At the very least, Norway's political and economic system is a "compromise" between capitalism and socialism. The original Killing Fields comment said there could be no compromise with socialism. I would agree that all totalitarian communist regimes have there own "Killing Fields" to some extent or another: e.g., Stalin and Mao's purges were not as horrific as Pol Pot's reign of terror, but were horrific enough in their own right.

Oso, interesting to see that your reading of Atlas Shrugged matches mine. Some interviews with Ayn Rand (sorry, I don't have cites) suggest she did see people as perfectable in this sense. But, although she is the creator, Rand is not the living embodiment of Objectivist ethics. (Correct?) Spiral Architect, I think you are spot on in your response - "speed of plot" is a great image. To go back a ways to the comment on the Killing Fields, they are hardly an inevitable result of socialism. There are no Killing Fields in socialist Norway. And apologies again for the slip of my mind on electricity. It was a horrible example (which I stupidly and unthinkingly repeated from the uncyclopedia entry for John Galt). Spiral Architect has answered my intended point.

Yes, bluecherry, that's right about the electricity. I forgot about the engine. It is the breadth of the technology available in the Gulch with so few hands to implement it that is rather a stretch. But, like I said, I am not hung up on the level of realism in Atlas Shrugged, it is largely a parable more than an intended representation of possible reality. That's why, I am realizing, the Utopian aspects and naivete about human nature in it are not such a problem. As for Nicky, he always shows a tendency to throw out judgements without thinking through the context. (Evidence: two posts in a row, rather than consolidating in one, suggests he did not take the time to think carefully about either.) As for whether Objectivism believes in perfectibility, that is the whole point of this post - so, rather more of an on-topic discussion would be more useful than a one-line attack. As for taxes, it is Objectivism's dislike of most taxes that leads me to say "tax breaks" are where Objectivists are likely to lobby for "special" treatment. Understandable that Nicky would not get my point since I made it in a very abbreviated way here. I expect to do a later post on Capital Gains taxation that will spell out my thinking more clearly. (Irrelevant sidenote: I prefer to spell out Objectivism instead of using the Oism abbreviation since the latter makes me think of Onanism.)

I mean something along the line of the "power corrupts" axiom. When someone achieves great success, they often come to think of it as something that is natural and "owed to them". Then, even if they were not corrupt originally, they will begin to rationalize corrupt actions to perpetuate their success as rightful: e.g., my industry ought to get special protection from the legislature because it is so important to the country's well-being - or, more likely in an Objectivist context, my company ought to receive special tax breaks that are not available to others.

A lot of good stuff here that will take me some time to digest. But let me put my comment about naivete of Objectivism in a nutshell: Galt's Gulch. It is clearly a Utopian ideal. Putting aside technological objections (e.g., where did they get the electricity), Galt's Gulch could not happen in real life because it would be impossible to find 50 or 100 or 500 (or, I believe, even 5 or 10) people who not only are genius movers-and-shakers but also would strictly adhere to Objectivist morality. My point was NOT how capitalism is a corruption of Objectivism, but rather that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible and that Objectivism (like Maoism) seems to think humans are perfectible. Having rephrased the question, let me take a shot at answering it. Comments here and my own ponderings have led me to see a possible solution. I'd like to know what others think of it. Here it is: Objectivism is not expected to be a natural state of being. Rather, it is intended to be an ideal state that democratic institutions would strive to acheive if the public were to accept Objectivism as the ideal. The goal of those on this forum is to educate people to this end. The fact that nobody acheives Objectivist (or Christian or any other moral system) ideals perfectly does not mean that they should not strive to use them as the basis for institutions (i.e., the law, the police and the courts).

Despite the purposely provocative title, this post is intended to provoke serious discussion. In a discussion in another thread, I said that I found Objectivism to be too simplistic and that this view underlies most of my posts. Here I will make it explicit. My jumping-off point was a discussion of the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” maxim. As a teenager, this maxim had significant resonance for me, but I have since realized it was derived from an overly simplistic worldview. I find Objectivism to have much truth within it, but to suffer from the same fault of simplicity (though obviously in a different direction). Far from being the outgrowth of “monstrous evil” as Ayn Rand argues, the maxim reflects a hopelessly naive view of mankind’s nature and altruistic instincts. The “monstrous evil” that does, I agree, result from this maxim and other Communist ideas is, I would argue, a certain but unintended consequence of this naivety. But, first, a digression: while I believe the maxim reflects an overly optimistic view of human nature, it also reflects an extremely pessimistic view of human potential. That is, the maxim essentially assumes that there will be no “surplus” created by human endeavours. It assumes that the full realization of everybody’s abilities still creates only enough to satisfy everybody’s needs. There would be no surplus that can be used to satisfy people’s wants and desires. First, the maxim is naive in assuming that everybody would desire to work to their full abilities without any incentive to do so other than seeing their needs and everyone else’s being satisfied. As such, it saps the creative vigour of healthy competition and drains the very desire to work. The “pie” that is created will necessarily be less than the one that could be created. Second, the maxim is naive in assuming that there is some objective or natural way to determine whether people are fulfilling their abilities or what people’s true needs are. Rand’s parable of Twentieth Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged (AS) – as well as Orwell’s Animal Farm (AF) – show the monstrous evil that results: there is no need for me to spell it out here. The opportunistic and immoral (like AS’s Gerald and Ivy Starnes or the pigs in AF) will always take advantage of this naivety. But even the hardworking ordinary people, like the TWMC workers in AS, will necessarily be corrupted by trying to make these impossible determinations (although Boxer, the horse in AF, never was corrupted). Now, I come to the title of my post. I think that Objectivism’s worldview is equally naive and simplistic. It assumes that, left to their own in a laissez faire environment, the “best and the brightest” will compete and achieve in a fashion consistent with Objectivist morality. Hank Reardon is AS’s Boxer the horse. He is never corrupted by the power that he could wield using his phenomenal intellect, but instead always focuses on his work. He will not collude with his competitors or lobby for legislation that favors his industry. But how does this compare with what the titans of industry do in real life? The Robber Barons were clearly men of great intellect and capability – the railroads could never have been built without them. But they used collusion, bribery, violence and many other vices – vices that Objectivism soundly condemns – to further increase their fortunes and their power. My argument is two-fold. Objectivist or capitalist principles are necessary and proper in order to create the surplus that mankind is capable of creating while giving people meaning for their exertions. But collectivist principles (e.g., democracy itself) and regulation are necessary to tame the excesses that will naturally result from giving unrestrained power to the elite and to ensure a fairer and more just society. Both Objectivist or Collectivist philosophies alone are overly simplistic and necessarily will result in injustice and evil.

@Spiral Architect - Hmm, yes, there is certainly room for proper Tort Reform in an Objectivist system. The limitation (or elimination) of punitive damages ... as well as of "pain and suffering" type damages are quite appropriate. (On punitive damages, there is room to argue whether the tort system, the criminal justice system, or some combination is the appropriate forum.) But, much so-called Tort Reform is about limiting actual damages to unreasonably small sums. I use the Jim Taggert comparison carefully. He was a businessman who abused the power of money to get government to violate rights and favor his business over his rivals. When you talk about excessive verdicts won by individuals, Philip Rearden would be a better symbol. But please expand upon your point about proportional damages. It seems to me that your "from each according to his ability" condemnation more aptly applies to "joint and several" liability than to proportional liability. But perhaps that is what you meant? Proportional liability arguably bases justice only on actions: i.e., if I am a 50% partner, I should not have to pay more than 50% because then I would be being held responsible for my partner's actions rather than my own. As for your explaining monstrous evil to me, there is no need as I have already read Atlas Shrugged and am well familiar with the parable of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. In my childhood, the abilities-means maxim held significant resonance with me. I have since come to see its results as, indeed, monstrously evil. I have long since given up overly simplistic viewpoints and now hold both some Objectivist beliefs and some Collectivist ones. (No need to argue with me here whether or not Objectivism is overly simplistic ... that discussion underlies all of my posts, so I urge you to argue with me in specific contexts instead.)

Let's consider more closely where liability for financial consequences should rest in an Objectively perfect world. Consider a business entity (without considering whether it is a corporation or a partnership at this point) that hires people to build a $1 billion dam, and everyone involved takes all due care and uses the best available materials. The dam nonetheless fails and causes $5 billion damages to the people living below it. So, this is not a question of "fault" per se ... we cannot shrug it off as the responsibility of the managers, or workers, or any others hired by the business entity. We also cannot blame the people below the dam because the dam was built after they had already settled there -- to make the situation even clearer, let's assume the dam provided no benefits to the people below, but rather provided energy that the owning business entity sold for a profit for use in another county. Now a "looter" like Jim Taggert of Atlas Shrugged might argue that "tort reform" is appropriate and the people below the dam should receive only limited compensation for the damage they have suffered. I believe any Objectivist, upon careful reflection, would reject this view and find that the business entity should take responsibility for the results of its actions. To accept "tort reform" is to push the cost of the entity's activities to the victims or, quite likely, to the government. It is hard to envision a moral person who would, upon reflection, allow the former (cost shifted to the victim). Collectivists (like myself) might accept the latter in appropriate circumstances (cost shifted to the government). I am eager to hear if any Objectivist on this forum disagrees, but I do not believe that so-called "tort reform" is Objectively moral or appropriate. Of course, placing the burden on the "business entity" does not answer the original question posed by OP. I would argue, again, that limited corporate liability can be defended on non-Objectivist grounds, but that there is generally no legitimate basis for it under Objectivist ethics. Consider first the case where the business entity is owned by two individuals who were both deeply involved in planning the dam project and in hiring the managers who would oversee construction. It is hard to see why they should be "on the hook" if organized as a partnership but not as a corporation ... unless perhaps, as OP posits, the corporate tax allows the government to take responsibility. I do not believe the answer should be fundamentally different if there are a large number of owners of the business entity. Each partner or shareholder would reap the benefit of profits earned by the entity and should have considered whether their investment was consistent with their morals. They did not simply "entrust their money" as though it were a bank account. By the same token, they should take responsibility for the actions of the business entity in which they have taken an ownership interest. Having said all this, there is one type of limited liability that might be Objectively proper - namely, "proportional liability". Under current US law, if the business entity is a partnership, all partners are "jointly and separately liable". To expand on our two individual investors' scenario, assume one individual has $10 billion dollars in personal assets and the other has only $1 billion. Under current US law, the poorer partner would have to contribute his entire $1 billion to cover damages while the richer partner would have to make up the difference: $4 billion. Under proportional liability, the richer partner would only be liable for his proportionate share of damages - $2.5 billion. It seems to me that this system would be consistent with Objectivist principles of individual responsibility.

LOL, can dish it out (rudely calling people "wrong" rather than politely disagreeing) but can't take it. But I do appreciate this diplomat way of ending conversation. Anyway, I've made my point, and won't be rude in future posts.

Some splendid discussion here. I especially like Spiral Architect's discussion of John Locke and this: Thank you all for taking on my question.

Thank you addressing the question, Spiral Architect. I am not familiar with US oil & gas law, so I do not know if it puts any limitations on ownership. All offshore oil is owned by the government and leased to oil companies. As leasee, the legal doctrine of "waste" would prevent the oil companies from destroying the oil. It may or may not be that the concept is extended to privately owned oil reserves. It does not matter because I am asking for commentary about what "should" be the law ... not what it is. My view is that there are some resources that the government, acting on behalf of the general public, should be able to regulate against "waste" even though they are on private land. Oil is a precious resource that we as a society need to carefully manage since it is so crucial to the economy. Forests or mountains may be too important for their scenic value to allow private owners to destroy them. Many other examples are possible. I believe Objectivists would prefer property rights to be absolute, as you have laid out, Spiral Architect. I am asking posters to defend that position. As for posters comments about Wyatt's Torch such as: I am not "suggesting" Wyatt destroyed "immense reserves". Rather, I am using his more modest destruction of some of the reserves in the ground as an example for purposes of raising the issue. Please do not get hung up on the Wyatt's Torch example itself, but consider the question in the abstract. If you think there should be a "de minimis" exception to a rule against destruction of owned natural resources, that would be valuable to discuss.

No, I am afraid that it is not only Wyatt's extraction equipment that was set on fire. Only the underlying oil could stay alit for the entire time period of the novel. Wyat did not "leave it as he found it" because the oil was not on fire when he found it. The fact that the government scientists didn't know how to extract the oil is irrelevant because a subsequent inventor might figure it out. In any case, if it makes the thought puzzle easier to address, consider instead a case where an oilman purposely destroys all of the readily-extractible oil on his land.

Actually, Nicky, you are the one who is "wrong". Acting through corporate form is not "simply handing someone your money to handle as he sees fit". That is a very un-Objectivist thing to say. All "owners" (aka shareholders) are responsible for their actions. Now, if you are thinking only about widely held corporations, you are on the right track for a non-Objectivist defense of limited liability. It is more efficient to allow large corporations to be formed. Small investors will only agree to invest if they get limited liability since they have no control over the underlying business that they "own" a piece of. Therefore, the "people" (I know Ayn Rand does not like that term) have a right to create a government and give that government the right to grant limited liability in order to make the economy more efficient.

Excellent question. Through his post and responses, OP has covered most of the ground. So, I will just put a finer edge on one aspect of it. Yes, providing limited liability in exchange for the corporate tax would be reasonable as a government-citizen contract, but for one problem: does the government have the right to offer limited liability in the first place? Presumably, if a person (or collection of persons - i.e., a corporation) do harm to another person (e.g., the flood OP brings up in a response), they should be liable for the full damage under Objectivist principles. The two persons do not have a contract between them giving one or the other limited liability. Therefore, each person is responsible for the harm caused by their actions. The government does not "own" any right to absolve any person from taking responsibility for the damages they cause. (Note: I am not an Objectivist. I happen to believe in limited liabiity, but for other reasons. I also believe in a progressive personal income tax but not a corporate tax, also for other reasons. Maybe some day I will get into these reasons, but they are irrelevant here because I intend to answer based on Objectivist principles. If you think I am wrong about Objectivism, please post a response.)

My grand plans for a series of posts died from lack of time. My last post was more than 6 months ago. I'm going to take a more bite-size approach now. So, the topic asks my basic question: Should there be limits on ownership rights related to natural resources, including land, forests, oil, etc.? To focus the topic, let's think about "Wyatt's torch" from Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Wyatt was an oilman who developed highly effective technology for getting oil from difficult places. He owned land and drilled for oil on it. Time and again, he suffered when the "looter" government made unreasonable demands on him, compromising his property rights. Wyatt decided to "disappear". But before he did, he set fire to his oil wells, creating "Wyatt's torch" which the government was unable to ever put out. So, the concrete question is: Did Wyatt have a right to torch the oil on his land? Do ownership rights go so far that the owner of natural resources is able to prevent others from using them forever? Last, a few related issues I don't intend to raise here: First, I am assuming that Wyatt got his property rightfully in the first place. (Perhaps, I will delve into this topic later - how does one rightfully get ownership in land in the first place?) Second, I am assuming that Wyatt has every right to destroy the technology he developed (e.g., all technical documents, all equipment he built, etc.). Third, I don't want to discuss whether Wyatt's actions were legitimate as an "act of war" in the battle between John Galt and the outside world. That is, let's discuss whether people would have a right to destroy natural resources in a Objectively perfect world. I am eager to hear what you all think!

Thanks, Nicky. Some very good points. I do still maintain that certain laws are of necessity arbitrary. For example, the law that says you must drive on the right (or the left) side of the street. This example is so trivial that I don't seriously think it could be an indictment of Objectivism. More interesting is the area of social mores, such as whether burping after a meal is polite or impolite. This sort of thing, while felt deeply by people of each culture, are clearly culturally relative, not objectively defined. And this kind of social mores have been codified as law at times: the Jewish Law found in Deuteronomy is an example. Consider whether our drug and prostitution laws are also examples. I do not think Objectivism supports any such laws, so they do not advance my hypothesis that the rights posited by Objectivism are culturally relative. Stay tuned for my next post on ownership of land and natural resources to explore this issue more deeply. As for the Objectivist who would consider the patent law to be a looter's creation, I do not know whether there is any such person. Such a person would not object to Mr. Edison profiting from his invention to the greatest extent he can. Rather, he or she would object to the patent law preventing a subsequent independent inventor from profiting from his or her own invention.

Nicky, your restatement of my question as "why are property rights in inventions objective and rational?" captures my broader inquiry reasonably well. But, with this first post, I am asking a more specific question: what elements of the property rights in inventions are truly fundamental and what elements are just a creation of government. Again, the specific number of years of a patent monopoly cannot be fundamental: government must make a more or less arbitrary choice. It is not true that the time limit for patents relates to technological obsolescence, but the obsolescence period varies from product to product and so is inconsistent with a fixed period for all patents. If there IS some fundamental element in the property right in inventions then I believe it would relate to the trade secret line rather than the patent side. In fact, I would not be surprised if some Objectivists found the patent regime to be a looters' creation: what gives the government the right to give one inventor a monopoly over an invention that another inventor might independently develop? The problem with this view is that many products can be easily reverse engineered, so trade secret protection is not adequate to give inventors an incentive to commercialize their inventions. As a student of legal theory, I can say with certainty that the time limit for patents reflects a balancing of rights. The specific intention is that the invention falls into the public domain at the end of the period, which would be meaningless if it has become obsolete. Having said this, it is actually the requirement of full disclosure in patent filings that reflects a notion of the public good, not the time limit. One could conceive of a patent regime that gave a monopoly over an invention for a period of time but did not require disclosure - i.e., a patent regime that worked in parallel with broader trade secret protection. Under such as regime, it is the rights of the original developer that are being balanced against the rights of a potential subsequent developer; collectivist rights or the public good would not be considered per se. Michele - That is an interesting conundrum your relative faces. I'm curious: was the invention developed in whole or in part "on company time" or using company resources? Or was it entirely in the inventor's spare time at home?

Having <a href="http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=22911">introduced myself</a> already, I am now making my first substantive post. This is the first of an intended series of interrelated posts. While it might change based on the flow of discussion, I expect to advance the following argument: because property rights are subjective by nature and must be defined by government, democracy must therefore be a more fundamental principle than property rights. I question whether there are any fundamental property rights or whether all property rights flow from the social contract, i.e., are necessarily defined, and therefore created, by government. The most difficult case, to which I plan to devote my next post, is the question of ownership of natural resources, including land. This post explores what seems to be a far simpler case, a case closer to being fundamental: ownership of inventions of the mind. To put it in terms of Atlas Shrugged, I will save the case of d’Anconia copper for my next post and take on Rearden metal here. The principle that one should own the product of one’s own invention seems, at a minimum, to be reasonable: among other things, it encourages progress and productivity. But I wonder whether it is truly a fundamental and inviolable principle. The case becomes more difficult when we think of the most common type of invention in this era: inventions for hire. If one man (or corporation) hires another (or an entire workforce) to develop an invention, should the invention belong to the one who puts up the money or the one(s) whose mind and work actually creates the invention? But, let’s leave that aside and take the easier case: Rearden metal, which was created almost entirely by Henry Rearden’s tireless individual efforts of sweat and mind over many years. Unless Rearden keeps the metal entirely to himself, property rights in even this most personal of inventions must be defined by government. Under current U.S. law (and that of most other nations), Rearden has essentially two options for maintaining his property rights: trade secret protection and patent filing protection. If he chooses the first option, trade secret protection, Rearden’s rights are perpetual … at least until somebody else duplicates his invention, either by independent research or by reverse engineering. As long as Rearden puts contracts and other confidentiality procedures in place, the law protects him from others wrongfully appropriating his trade secrets, principally by giving him the right to monetary compensation (i.e., transferring the thief’s profits to Rearden). Rearden’s other option is to file for a patent on his invention, which requires him to publicly disclose all of the invention details, but provides him with a monopoly on it over a fixed number of years, even against those who might independently develop the same invention. Patent law is clearly a creation of government, designed to balance the rights of the individual inventor against the collective benefit to the public of disclosure of the details of the invention. It would be difficult to argue that the exact contours of this legal regime can be objectively determined. At a minimum, the government must make a subjective decision as to the number of years that the patent monopoly is afforded. Until reading The Virtue of Selfishness, I thought that this fact was an indictment of Objectivism itself. However, I now see that Ayn Rand recognized the need for government to set out the details and that there could be well-intentioned disputes among the law makers: Objectivism, it seems, only requires that government set out its standards in an objective way (“the rule of law”) rather than through arbitrary and subjective guidelines that must be interpreted by an outside arbiter (“the rule of man”). The question I have for this forum is whether there is a central kernel to property rights in inventions that objective reason requires. That is to say, is there some fundamental property right that no legitimate government can modify or impinge?