Objectivism: Who Owns It?

[DavidOdden]

I don't mean to be nit-picky but, actually, their writings must always be validated with reference to the facts of reality. Validating them by reference to Ayn Rand's statements would be an example of rationalism.

Whether or not their writings are consistent with Objectivism, that is what must be determined by reference to Ayn Rand's statements.

I don't think it's possible to validate a statement in an absolute sense -- it has to be validated as something. For example, a statement could be validated as a statement about reality (in which case the validation would refer to reality), or a statement could be validated as a conclusion of Objectivism, in which case the proof that it is a conclusion of Objectivism would have to come from the writings of Ayn Rand. You would then need a separate proof to show the relationship between that conclusion and reality, i.e. to show that the conclusion is in fact factually correct.

But even if Dr. Peikoff's conclusion is clearly implicit in the writings of Ayn Rand, it is still not Objectivism - and Dr. Peikoff has always been very clear about pointing that out when it comes to his writings.

Are you arguing that "Objectivism" only refers to the non-derived primary principles of Objectivism. I am arguing that any conclusion of Objectivist philosophy is implicit in Objectivism, and therefore it is already there. What may need to be done, in some particular case, is make explicit that the conclusion is already there, for example by proving that it is immoral to specifically steal my car.

[DavidOdden]

While I recognize that my views are not reflected in current law, I regard one's name as a form of intellectual property.

That has got to be one of the most indefensible statements that I have seen in years. What possible proof can you have to support this claim? You know, Objectivism isn't some rationalistic "this is how I feel about it" philosophy, so it doesn't matter how you "regard" people's names.

[Daedalus]

That has got to be one of the most indefensible statements that I have seen in years. What possible proof can you have to support this claim? You know, Objectivism isn't some rationalistic "this is how I feel about it" philosophy, so it doesn't matter how you "regard" people's names.

I regard my name as my property for the same reason I regard my arm and leg as my property. My limbs are required for my survival as a rational being -- and so is my name. When someone represents himself as me, he is stealing my good name and reputation. To put it in Objectivist terms, my identity is not "the means to the ends or the welfare of others."

[Maarten]

But I think it goes quite far to say that no one can speak your name without permission. As long as they are not claiming that they are you, I see no problem with a website questioning your viewpoints, for example.

[DavidOdden]

When someone represents himself as me, he is stealing my good name and reputation.

This is a red herring. Invoking misrepresentation is misleading: the question is whether I can rightfully say that Rob Henson is wrong in his application of Objectivism on such-and-such point, without your permission. I can. The only wrong would be me claiming to be you, or to legally represent you. If you consider your name to be a part of you like your arm, then you are seriously mistaken.

[Dismuke]

This is getting to the point that I have been trying to make since I created this thread. However, unlike what is quoted above, I believe that not only Binswanger's, Bernstein's, and Smith's writings need to be verified with reality, but also Rand's.

Well, yes, of course. Please point out to me a single person with an ounce of credibility who has ever suggested that Ayn Rand's ideas somehow shouldn't be verified with reality.

Ayn Rand did not technically create Objectivism, she discovered it. Discovering the correct philosophical system (ie: the truth) is not an act of invention. It is like discovering Newtonian physics, rather than inventing mystical explanations. This is why Objectivism is not a closed system. It is open to interpretation and application as long as Objectivism's basic principles are employed, whether or not Ayn Rand, had she lived longer, or any of her appointed successors remained as rational and consistent as she was.

No, this is completely false. This is pure David Kelley nonsense. Objectivism is NOT synonymous with "everything which is correct and rational in philosophy." Objectivism is strictly the philosophical principles that Ayn Rand either put forth herself or those put forth by others that she gave her explicit endorsement to such as when she published their articles in her magazines. If someone else comes along and makes new identifications based on premises that they learned from Ayn Rand, the credit for that identification belongs to that person - not Ayn Rand. That person may be influenced by Objectivism or even consider himself an Objectivist - but his original work is his own, not Ayn Rand's.

Human knowledge is "open ended" in that new evidence about any subject may be and likely will be discovered. In that sense, philosophical knowledge in general is "open ended" in that new identifications and discoveries must be taken into consideration. But Objectivism is merely the proper name for a specific set of systematic philosophical principles put forth by one individual who is no longer alive. It is no more "open" than is the realm of "Victorian era fashion" or "Victorian era architecture." In 1889, both were "open" in that what we now call "late Victorian" trends and styles were still evolving. However, once Queen Victoria died, the Victorian era died with her. If an architect or a fashion designer comes along today and designs clothes or houses taking Victorian era trends in a new direction with his own unique interpretation and contribution, one cannot properly include such a person's work as an example of "Victorian fashion" or "Victorian architecture." One might be able to refer to it as "neo-Victorian" or "Victorianesque" or "Victorian Revival" in order to acknowledge the very real connection to the Victorian era. But such works are NOT properly considered "Victorian."

There may very well come a point in the future where it will be appropriate to have a new term which will refer to that collection of discoveries and identifications in philosophy and other fields of endeavor which are based on and philosophically consistent with Objectivism - a term which will acknowledge the very obvious Objectivist influence but, at the same time, differentiate it from actual Objectivism, i.e. the philosophical principles out forth and endorsed by Ayn Rand. At present, however, I doubt that Objectivism's influence has grown to such a degree that such a term is necessary. (And, I might add, that today's Tolerationists and self-styled "neo-Objectivists" do NOT fall into that category nor qualify for any such term other than, perhaps "pseudo-Objectivist." They are nothing more than people who disagree with Ayn Rand and wish to hijack her philosophy by incorporating into it more conventional philosophical premises that Ayn Rand challenged and rejected but which they choose not to.

The entire notion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is "open" - i.e. that her philosophy lacks its very specific identity - is nothing more than a scam put forth by charlatans such as Kelley who disagree with significant aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy but, lacking any prestige or name recognition of their own, seek to ride on the visibility and prestige that the names "Ayn Rand" and "Objectivism" have earned in order to attract attention to their own works.

[Daedalus]

This is a red herring. Invoking misrepresentation is misleading: the question is whether I can rightfully say that Rob Henson is wrong in his application of Objectivism on such-and-such point, without your permission. I can. The only wrong would be me claiming to be you, or to legally represent you. If you consider your name to be a part of you like your arm, then you are seriously mistaken.

It is not a red herring at all. Control over one’s identity -- which is essential to survival in the 21st century -- is the very issue at stake in how one’s name is used. It is important not only to those with a concern about their credit rating but also to those who make a living by means of the printed word.

For example, in Ayn Rand’s lifetime, National Review published two lengthy attacks on her, full of exaggerations and outright lies. The first, by Whittaker Chambers, compared the heroes in Atlas Shrugged to Nazi exterminators. In a later hit piece, M. Stanton Evans attempted to portray Ayn Rand and her associates as cult leaders.

Had Ayn Rand been in full legal control of her name, neither article could have been printed -- and thousands of potential converts to Objectivism would not have had a poisonous first impression of America’s greatest philosopher-novelist.

Now, disagreement with Ayn Rand or me or anyone else is certainly within one’s rights. However, Ayn Rand (or her estate) should be able to control how her name is used in electronic and printed media -- just as they control how the text of We the Living is printed and sold. Most authors would be only too happy to grant magazines and journals the right to review their works, taking the good with the bad.

But it is not only moral but essential that a writer not permit his name and words to be used by his enemies.

[Dismuke]

I don't think it's possible to validate a statement in an absolute sense -- it has to be validated as something. For example, a statement could be validated as a statement about reality (in which case the validation would refer to reality), or a statement could be validated as a conclusion of Objectivism, in which case the proof that it is a conclusion of Objectivism would have to come from the writings of Ayn Rand. You would then need a separate proof to show the relationship between that conclusion and reality, i.e. to show that the conclusion is in fact factually correct.

While I find the term "absolute sense" to be a bit odd, I don't disagree with the example you provide. Yes, proving that something is consistent with Objectivism is an entirely matter than proving that it is correct. The fact that something can be demonstrated as consistent with Objectivism does not constitute proof that it is correct. To suggest otherwise would be an example of rationalism.

Are you arguing that "Objectivism" only refers to the non-derived primary principles of Objectivism. I am arguing that any conclusion of Objectivist philosophy is implicit in Objectivism, and therefore it is already there. What may need to be done, in some particular case, is make explicit that the conclusion is already there, for example by proving that it is immoral to specifically steal my car.

I suspect that you might be blurring the difference between Objectivism and the application of Objectivist principles to specific situations.

A number of Objectivist intellectuals - in venues ranging from ARI editorials, to Dr. Brook's appearances on television, to editorials in TIA Daily, to Dr. Binswanger's postings in HBL - have spoken at length about the current War on Terror and on President Bush's handling of the war. All of them have based their arguments and conclusions as to what ought to be done on Objectivist principles. But, no, their specific arguments and conclusions on the subject are NOT considered part of Objectivism. Objectivism has a great deal to say regarding the subject of foreign policy, the morality of self-defense, the evils of dictators, thugs and regimes headed by such thugs, etc. But there is no specific Objectivist position on the War on Terror or on George Bush's performance. Objectivism clearly holds that a free country has the right to launch a preemptive war in order to take out a dictatorship, especially one which poses a military threat of some kind. Advocating that we launch such a war right now with Tehran is fully consistent with Objectivist principles. Advocating that we issue an ultimatum to Iran that they surrender now or face the prospect of Tehran being nuked would not be, in and of itself, inconsistent with Objectivist principles. But Objectivism has nothing to say about whether we should or should not do such things with regard to Iran. It does offer principles which can offer very relevant and necessary guidance for a civilized and free country in defending itself and dealing with a country such as Iran. But there are a whole bunch of factors (for example, the strength of the countries' respective militaries, secret intelligence, the political climate at home, etc) besides Objectivist principles that have to be taken into consideration before one can properly recommend a specific course of action on what to do with regard to Iran.

As to the hypothetical theft of your car - well, there is nothing derivatory about that issue at all. Objectivism is very explicit about stating that theft is immoral - which necessarily includes the theft of your car, your copyrights, your goldfish etc. What Objectivism is silent about is whether a specific person is or is not guilty of stealing your car - even if you used Objectivist principles to help make that discovery. Objectivism has nothing to say about what specific punishment should be appropriately dished out to that person, again, even if one used Objectivist principles in order to reach that conclusion.

Nor does Objectivism really even say that the specific person who steals your car is immoral in all possible instances. Objectivism recognizes that moral principles are contextual. For example, suppose the person who stole your car was being chased by a bunch of gang members armed with knives. That certainly qualifies as an emergency situation. Just as the gangsters are about to catch up to him, he runs past your car and notices the doors are unlocked and your keys are in the ignition. In order to save his life, he jumps in your car, turns it on and flees away from the gangsters. Given that unusual context, there is certainly nothing immoral about what he did assuming that he makes every attempt to return the car and make restitution as soon as possible. If he looks in the rear view mirror and sees the gang members following him in a second car that they managed to steal, it might very well be a while before he gets a chance to return the car. Principles are valid and must be applied only within the appropriate context.

Objectivism is the philosophy that Ayn Rand put forth. Your application of it to any given context is your intellectual achievement and is not part of Objectivism.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Dismuke

[DavidOdden]

As to the hypothetical theft of your car - well, there is nothing derivatory about that issue at all. Objectivism is very explicit about stating that theft is immoral - which necessarily includes the theft of your car, your copyrights, your goldfish etc.

It would help if you could point me to that statement -- I'm not aware of it, though my unawareness is not proof of anything. I'm looking for that specific principle, not the principle that for example man has the right to the product of his mind or that the initiation of force is a violation of man's rights. By invoking "necessarily includes", you seem to be seeing Objectivism not just as the exact principles articulated by Rand (particular sentences), but also more refined statements such as "theft of your car is immoral", "theft of your book is immoral", "theft of my book is immoral". These are statements which Rand did not make, but are implicit in and are necessarily included in actual statements by Rand. That is my point: that Objectivism is not the set of sentences of Ayn Rand, or the set of philosophical statements of principle which she articulated, but the set of philosophical statements of principle expressly articulated (verbatim) by her and the statements which necessarily follow from those statements.

As far as the questions of nuking Iran or supporting (or opposing) GWB go, those are conclusions that do not follow necessarily from Objectivism. It is important to distinguish between statements that are "not inconsistent" with Objectivism from ones that truly follow from (are logically implied by) the principles specifically named by Ayn Rand. Although, it is difficult to name/articulate such a principle (as you point out, theft is not necessarily immoral). I'm not claiming that every reasonable conclusion that appears to be grounded in (suggested by) the philosophical principles of Rand is Objectivism, just those ones that are truly logically entailed.

[Spano]

It is not a red herring at all. Control over one’s identity -- which is essential to survival in the 21st century -- is the very issue at stake in how one’s name is used. It is important not only to those with a concern about their credit rating but also to those who make a living by means of the printed word.

The only thing one has the right to control is his *property*. Property must be earned. In speaking of identity, you are attempting to conflate name and reputation. Your name, as such, is simply a symbolic identifier of you as an individual. It is arbitrary in that you were designated "Rob Henson" at birth by your parents -- you did nothing to earn this name and it in no way constitutes property.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. - Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights"

You seem to be suggesting that your name, the object, the string of text "Rob Henson", is your property. If so, please give a derivation of how your name becomes your property, based on the Objectivist ethics.

Under your proposed system, criticism and free speech would be ended. It's a good thing your system isn't in place, or else I suppose you'd have me hauled off to prison for this post.

[Daedalus]

The only thing one has the right to control is his *property*. Property must be earned.

By that criterion we would have to rule out the human body as belonging to the individual who inhabits it. How does one earn the teeth in one's mouth, the hair on one’s head? We would also have to exclude hereditary wealth from the category of legitimate property. How did the Kennedy children earn their fortunes?

In speaking of identity, you are attempting to conflate name and reputation. Your name, as such, is simply a symbolic identifier of you as an individual.

To state that one has ownership over both his name and reputation is not to conflate the two concepts. But it is obvious that if a writer associates my name with immoral activities or absurd beliefs, my reputation will suffer.

It is arbitrary in that you were designated "Rob Henson" at birth by your parents -- you did nothing to earn this name and it in no way constitutes property.

The arbitrariness of my parents' name selection is irrelevant to my ownership of that name. By comparison, it is arbitrary that I was given a red rather than a blue bicycle on my eighth birthday. The choice of color has no bearing on my ownership of the bike.

You seem to be suggesting that your name, the object, the string of text "Rob Henson", is your property. If so, please give a derivation of how your name becomes your property, based on the Objectivist ethics.

See my earlier post: by the same means by which one acquires ownership of one's arms and legs.

Under your proposed system, criticism and free speech would be ended. It's a good thing your system isn't in place, or else I suppose you'd have me hauled off to prison for this post.

Not at all. Do we say we have no free speech today because we are prohibited from reproducing novels and plays without the authors' permission? Furthermore, there is no reason why forums such as this one couldn’t require participants to waive proprietary rights to their name during the course of discussion. Similarly, academic journals might require scholars submitting articles to permit free use of their name and writings by respondents to their opinions.

[Spano]

You are trying to dodge the issue by falsely comparing a name and a body part. The are completely different. My leg is a part of me -- it is me. To use my leg you necessarily must use coercion against me. A name is NOT part of me -- it is a identifier, a string of text pronounced by anyone who can read or speak. Because a name exists totally apart from it, the use of a name involves no coercion. I can sit here and say your name a thousand times without your life being impacted one bit.

Not at all. Do we say we have no free speech today because we are prohibited from reproducing novels and plays without the authors' permission?

Again, you are trying to dodge the issue: a novel is property, a name is not. A novel is a product of the effort of an individual, a value created by him. A name as such is not, and thus does not warrant any protection under property rights.

Please answer this question: under your proposed system, can I or can I not write, print, and distribute of my own effort and at my expense a pamphlet detailing why "Rob Henson" is badly mistaken when he claims that a person's name should be subject to property rights (without your permission)? If I can, then you have no property right to your name. If I can't, then my freedom of speech is subject to your veto even though I'm innocent of coercion in any form.

[softwareNerd]

I regard my name as my property for the same reason I regard my arm and leg as my property.

Even if one concedes that your name is your property, it does not follow that no one many mention it. If someone points to my arm and says, "nice arms", or "look at his arms" or "softwareNerd has arms", what's wrong with that. Similarly, someone might say "look at that house". Just because it is my property, does not mean that none may mention it or look at it.

[Hal]

While I recognize that my views are not reflected in current law, I regard one's name as a form of intellectual property. And, yes, a proper legal code would allow you veto power over any website entitled "Why softwareNerd Is Wrong?" or "Why I support softwareNerd."

Does this mean that if I copyright "John Smith" I get to sue anyone who uses that name for their child? And if I meet my friend in the street and say "hi Paul", would he be able to sue me if I had never asked for permission to use his name?

edit: you cant trademark common language words anyway. Theres no difference between claiming ownership to "John Adams" and trying to create a company called "The" and demanding royalties for anyone who uses this word in their speech. Copyright/trademarks have to be original - maybe if you wanted to call yourself "Zikozklauxa" you'd have a chance of making an IP claim.

edit: And if you did copyright your name, I assume most other people would just collectively agree to call you something else instead (and theyd probably decide on something fairly rude).

Edited May 17, 2006 by Hal

[Dismuke]

It would help if you could point me to that statement -- I'm not aware of it, though my unawareness is not proof of anything. I'm looking for that specific principle, not the principle that for example man has the right to the product of his mind or that the initiation of force is a violation of man's rights. By invoking "necessarily includes", you seem to be seeing Objectivism not just as the exact principles articulated by Rand (particular sentences), but also more refined statements such as "theft of your car is immoral", "theft of your book is immoral", "theft of my book is immoral". These are statements which Rand did not make, but are implicit in and are necessarily included in actual statements by Rand. That is my point: that Objectivism is not the set of sentences of Ayn Rand, or the set of philosophical statements of principle which she articulated, but the set of philosophical statements of principle expressly articulated (verbatim) by her and the statements which necessarily follow from those statements.

Objectivism does not merely consist of the specific statements and sentences that Ayn Rand wrote; more importantly it consists of the philosophic principles that she articulated. Using her own words here: "A principle is 'a fundamental primary or general truth on which other truths depend.' Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes."

Thus it was not necessary for Any Rand to come out and specifically itemize: stealing cars is immoral, stealing intellectual property is immoral, stealing goldfish is immoral etc. Besides, how could anyone possibly itemize everything? Such principles are subsumed by the larger principle: theft is immoral. And that principle is, in turn, subsumed by the larger principles of man having a right to the product of his mind and effort and the initiation of force being a violation of man's rights.

Now, if the above is what you mean when you write that Objectivism consists of: "the set of philosophical statements of principle expressly articulated (verbatim) by her and the statements which necessarily follow from those statements" then I don't think that we have any fundamental disagreement here on anything except for the appropriate wording.

Outside of certain rare and unique highly technical contexts, I don't see the general value of going out of one's way to draw a distinction between a statement of principle and what the principle actually means. I also don't buy into the notion that a person's rights are violated when his truck is stolen is somehow "implicit" in Objectivism. Ayn Rand was VERY explicit about subject of property rights and the initiation of force. To state it using your wording, a "statement of principle" necessarily subsumes "the statements which necessarily follow from those statements."

My objection to highlighting such a distinction is it could confuse people new to the philosophy into buying into the notion that what Objectivism actually is is something which must be "interpreted" - which leads to the notion that it might be "open" to individual interpretation which, in practice, has resulted in disingenuous people such as Kelley reinterpreting "Objectivism" to incorporate their disagreements with the principles Ayn Rand articulated.

[ggdwill]

I realize what this is about now. It's not about whether or not Objectivism is "open" or "closed", it's about the disagreements between and amongst the different groups and individuals calling themselves Objectivists. All of this "open" and "closed" dialouge is just a way of "winning" a disagreement without having to discuss the merits of the particular arguments involved.

One side holds that Rand's words, or a reasonable implication of them, go - as if because she said they constituted Objectivism them they are intrinsically objective. The other side argues that Rand's words, or a reasonable implication of them, necessarily have to be openly discussed or directly experienced to be considered objective. Neither sounds very objective if you ask me.

Edited May 18, 2006 by ggdwill

[softwareNerd]

False alternative.

[Thoyd Loki]

This is ridiculous.

All systems of philosophy are closed upon the death of the philosopher who created it. Kantianism is closed, Aristotianism, Platonism, Leibnitz, all closed. You can't take any of the philosophies, change them or add to them and then claim that your work now represents the dead philosopher's philosophy. The philosophy is what the author of it says it is and that is that.

What is the philosophy of Plato? It is the philosophy that Plato wrote, it closed on his last utterance - anything said by anyone else thereafter does not change his philosophy, nor does it add to it, they being not Plato.

Maybe this wouldn't have ever come up if Miss Rand had chosen Randianism for the name of her philosophy and not some object name. A case differing from Existentialism for instance that had no single author that coined it to stand for his particular philosophy. It being descriptive rather than possessive as most philosophers have their own name as the name of their philosophy.

David Kelly is a moocher. He wants to expropriate the acheivements of another. He wants what has historically never happened. He wants to change the philosophy and still call it by Miss Rand's name because it has cash value.

Peikoff has always been very up front about where he stands on this and has always followed what is, in fact, the truth about every philosopher. Just check out the introduction to OPAR.

[Sherry]

This is ridiculous.

All systems of philosophy are closed upon the death of the philosopher who created it. Kantianism is closed, Aristotianism, Platonism, Leibnitz, all closed. You can't take any of the philosophies, change them or add to them and then claim that your work now represents the dead philosopher's philosophy. The philosophy is what the author of it says it is and that is that.

What is the philosophy of Plato? It is the philosophy that Plato wrote, it closed on his last utterance - anything said by anyone else thereafter does not change his philosophy, nor does it add to it, they being not Plato.

Maybe this wouldn't have ever come up if Miss Rand had chosen Randianism for the name of her philosophy and not some object name. A case differing from Existentialism for instance that had no single author that coined it to stand for his particular philosophy. It being descriptive rather than possessive as most philosophers have their own name as the name of their philosophy.

David Kelly is a moocher. He wants to expropriate the acheivements of another. He wants what has historically never happened. He wants to change the philosophy and still call it by Miss Rand's name because it has cash value.

Peikoff has always been very up front about where he stands on this and has always followed what is, in fact, the truth about every philosopher. Just check out the introduction to OPAR.

Thoyd, I think that is probably the clearest, and shortest, explanation yet.

[Hal]

What is the philosophy of Plato? It is the philosophy that Plato wrote, it closed on his last utterance - anything said by anyone else thereafter does not change his philosophy, nor does it add to it, they being not Plato.

I think this is a bad example, since theres legitimate debate over what Plato actually meant at various points where he wasnt especially clear, as well as arguments over which pieces of his writing represented his own views and which were the views of Socrates, and so on.

Similarly, there are problems with saying "Kantianism is the philosophy of Kant". Which particualar philosophy is that? "Well, the philosophy that Kant wrote about in his Critiques". But which interpretation do you mean? Kant scholars regularly disagree over what he actually meant - theres no real consensus about what a 'noumena' is for example - so its not clear how you would decide who is really a Kantian in a case where you have 2 scholars who dont agree about his work. Unless you have some foolproof method of interpretation that lets you find out exactly what a particular thinker meant, youre likely to have serious problems answering these questions. This isnt as much of an issue for Objectivism though, since AR was normally fairly clear about what she meant (especially compared to Kant or Plato) so you dont generally have radical divergences in interpretation.

Its like saying "Christianity is what is written in the Bible". Catholics and Protestants think the Bible says different things, and this difference in opinion is probably underdetermined by the book itself.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Hal

[Lathanar]

Its like saying "Christianity is what is written in the Bible". Catholics and Protestants think the Bible says different things, and this difference in opinion is probably underdetermined by the book itself.

That's why they call themselves Catholic, Protestant, Luthern, Calvin, whatever else.

[Daedalus]

You are trying to dodge the issue by falsely comparing a name and a body part. The are completely different. My leg is a part of me -- it is me. To use my leg you necessarily must use coercion against me. A name is NOT part of me -- it is a identifier, a string of text pronounced by anyone who can read or speak. Because a name exists totally apart from it, the use of a name involves no coercion. I can sit here and say your name a thousand times without your life being impacted one bit.

You could also sit there and broadcast songs over your radio station without paying the songwriters a penny in royalties. And what would be wrong with that? The songs are not a part of the songwriters, are they? Can’t we then say that use of a song without permission or compensation involves no coercion?

Again, you are trying to dodge the issue: a novel is property, a name is not.

So you say. In China movies and CDs are regularly duplicated and sold without the permission of or compensation to the companies that hold the copyright. The fact that this piracy occurs with the consent of law enforcement authorities in China does not mean that no moral law is being broken. Similarly, the fact that some publications, such as The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, are permitted to use Ayn Rand’s name in the most disgraceful ways does not means that they are acting morally.

A novel is a product of the effort of an individual, a value created by him. A name as such is not, and thus does not warrant any protection under property rights.

My effort did not create the teeth in my mouth. They are nonetheless a value to me and one that should be protected by the legal code. The same is true for one’s name.

Please answer this question: under your proposed system, can I or can I not write, print, and distribute of my own effort and at my expense a pamphlet detailing why "Rob Henson" is badly mistaken when he claims that a person's name should be subject to property rights (without your permission)? If I can, then you have no property right to your name. If I can't, then my freedom of speech is subject to your veto even though I'm innocent of coercion in any form.

Morally, you can only use my name with my permission. Saying that requiring you to get my permission is the same as vetoing speech is no different than saying that having to get Mel Brooks’s permission to stage The Producers is a veto of free speech.

[Daedalus]

Even if one concedes that your name is your property, it does not follow that no one many mention it. If someone points to my arm and says, "nice arms", or "look at his arms" or "softwareNerd has arms", what's wrong with that. Similarly, someone might say "look at that house". Just because it is my property, does not mean that none may mention it or look at it.

Nothing is wrong with complimenting (or criticizing) a person's arms and legs. In doing so, you are not using that person's limbs. However, when you write "Ayn Rand," you are using words that belong to someone else. Using "Ayn Rand" without the rightful owner's permission is the same kind of rights violation as staging Night of January 16th without the copyright holder’s permission.

[Daedalus]

Does this mean that if I copyright "John Smith" I get to sue anyone who uses that name for their child?

No, because (as you seem to recognize below) it is not a unique name. Similarly, "The dog barked" is not a unique combination of words in the way that the text of Atlas Shrugged is.

And if I meet my friend in the street and say "hi Paul", would he be able to sue me if I had never asked for permission to use his name?

Private conversations are entirely different than public forums. You can read Atlas Shrugged aloud to your children without the copyright holder’s permission. However, reading it over the airwaves requires prior consent.

edit: you cant trademark common language words anyway. Theres no difference between claiming ownership to "John Adams" and trying to create a company called "The" and demanding royalties for anyone who uses this word in their speech. Copyright/trademarks have to be original - maybe if you wanted to call yourself "Zikozklauxa" you'd have a chance of making an IP claim.

I can call myself John Smith of 435 West 34th St., New York, NY to distinguish myself from others with the same name. Furthermore, if I become a best-selling author, those who wish to discuss John Smith and his book Making Your Heaven on Earth in print or in a public forum would have to obtain my permission first. After all, they are not discussing the words of John Smith the bartender of Brooklyn Heights.

edit: And if you did copyright your name, I assume most other people would just collectively agree to call you something else instead (and theyd probably decide on something fairly rude).

Agreed. We can discuss "the junior senator from New York" without violating her property right in her name.

[Lathanar]

My effort did not create the teeth in my mouth. They are nonetheless a value to me and one that should be protected by the legal code. The same is true for one’s name.

Considering the fact that man's life is the ultimate goal and that part of that goal means keeping your body alive, I would consider my body and body parts the product of my greatest effort of all., my survival. I would definitely consider my teeth a product of my efforts, just as my arms and legs are.