You can agree or disagree with anything you want to -- and may or may not be right and may or may not be similar to someone else to some degree -- but Ayn Rand's own philosophy is what she said it was under the name she gave it in what she wrote, said, and specifically included from others, not in any way what someone else prefers it to be -- including in their anarchism, religion, "toleration" as alleged fundamental virtue, inclusion of Libertarian Party politics, the attempts to "save" it by rewriting it, etc.

That Ayn Rand's ideas and her own philosophical formulation are what she said they are, and are only what she said they are, is a matter of objectivity, not "arbitrary claims", whatever she chose to name her philosophy. Recognizing that does not depend on what Ayn Rand "arbitrarily" wanted but the objectivity of identifying what her ideas in fact were and that they were not something else. The arbitrary is the demands of anyone who wants her philosophy, i.e., her ideas, to be whatever else he desires. That is not an appeal to "truth" -- anyone concerned with truth can argue anything he wants and try to give reasons for it in his own name -- it is a subjective demand announcing in advance his desire for protection under a "get out of jail free card" exclusion from having to justify why he should be taken seriously in his claim that his ideas are in fact the same as Ayn Rand's.

To demand that one's owns ideas be regarded as inherently part of a philosophy formulated by someone else through what she wrote and said is just as dishonest as plagiarism claiming to have originated another person's ideas. Those promoting this flim flam in the name of "openness" know fully well that Ayn Rand chose and publicly used the name "Objectivism" for her philosophy; they are appropriating the name because she used it, not because they have a superior regard for "truth" without regard to a supposedly arbitrary name.

Those most loudly and insistently making this "open Objectivism" demand are typically the worst offenders of ignorance and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy, demonstrating the purpose and expected results of cashing in on the ensuing confusion by a combination of crack pots, incompetents, and amateurs who may or may not know any better, and who don't deserve the audience they are misleading and seek to capture under the banner of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

This was the case even within Ayn Rand's own lifetime by those appropriating her name and cashing in on her fame while advertising themselves as "teaching" her ideas, "rewriting them", and/or "revising" them to whatever contradictory ideology they chose, from Libertarians to anarchists and more. She properly denounced it as half plagiarism and half contradicting her. They are typically those who don't know what much or most of her philosophy is, treating what they have read as a hodge podge of slogans and feelings on a philosophical Chinese menu. On such fringes today we even see the spectacle of "Christian Objectivists" insisting they are perfectly "compatible". It's not enough for them that they agree with some of her ideas despite their own contradictory premises, they demand that their own antagonistic views be packaged under the name of Ayn Rand along with those selected ideas of hers which they regard as required for their purpose.

Even if one formulates ideas that are compatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is up to him to honestly acknowledge their status, with the true combination of sources, while demonstrating why he thinks his ideas and their formulation are implied by or an application of or an elaboration of her philosophy, distinguishing between it and his own work and not calling it her philosophy. If he contradicts it then they are flatly not Ayn Rand's philosophy regardless of what he thinks of it.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is radically different than most prevailing philosophical premises in all the historically major realms of philosophy. One of the central ideas is the importance of knowledge as an integrated, consistent, logical hierarchy, based on direct experience of facts of reality in a process of objective abstract concepts -- not a subjective hodge podge of ever-evolving "pragmatism" or constructed "models", or intrinsic (mystic) "Truths" to be "discovered". Leonard Peikoff realized in accordance with this the importance of maintaining the integrity of the philosophy as a basic principle of the educational organization he founded to address those who take ideas seriously. Ayn Rand's philosophy cannot be understood by watering it down with a maze of contradictions, poor rewrites, and floating abstractions coming in from multiple sources, muddying it and obstructing understanding what it is by obscuring its identity. ARI is not based on "taboo" and does not tell anyone what he must think. It focuses on its own intellectual and educational goals and integrity, and does not concern itself with unimportant distractions demanding an audience.

Nathaniel Branden has nothing to do with this and is not relevant. He discredited himself a half century ago through his own psycho-implosion and actions, personal hostility trying to undermine Ayn Rand, and fundamental changes in his ideas (including forays into New Age mysticism), all of which few pay attention to.

I remember a bumper sticker that said: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” That is pretty much LP’s take on Rand’s philosophy, in that he has said if she didn’t say it, then its not relevant to Objectivism. But then, I thought she said that Objectivism was a philosophy of life and wonder how she could have addressed every possible situation for all time?

I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure out things like: “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?”

You can down vote this if it makes you feel better.