Peikoff wows 'em in Q&A as part of

[Philip Coates]

Michael, you mush together a number of different issues - rejection, excommunication, getting angry at a question and you don't address the exact dictionary definition of "bullying".

And then you say this "I am satisfied that Rand was aware of her intention to hurt" without having argued why your 'satisfaction' has evidentiary weight.

I'm not denying Rand was ever bullying. I'm asking for concrete examples. Rejecting people, getting angry at them, excommunicating them can be done for a number of possible reasons, good or bad. Doesn't necessarily fit the definition of "bullying". Please remember that words have an exact meaning. Please use the dictionary meanings.

,,,,

Can anyone else give examples?

[Philip Coates]

> a "got-him" or "take that" kind of gesture during the Q&A after some remark "trouncing" someone

Once again, do you see why this does not necessarily equate to "bullying" and is not necessarily intended to intimidate?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

There is a thread here somewhere (I think it is Barbara's corner) where different people give eyewitness examples of Rand bullying during NBI Q&A's. That is a series of concrete examples. Incidentally, that thread started because Barbara used to post on Diana Hsieh's blog way back when and Ms. Hsieh (or someone on the blog) started denying that Rand ever did those things.

For bullying "light," I believe her rhetoric perfectly fits the bill when she claims a person has a right to disagree with her, but on doing so, that person is a despicable yada yada yada. The examples are so numerous that I just don't want to waste time dissecting them. (Off the cuff, the "I think it's disgusting" homosexuality remark comes to mind.)

If you ever get the time to see the Phil Donahue interview with Rand, the one with Rand's famous nastiness to a dingbat (to me) questioner, you will notice that Rand continued to harp on the topic across several station breaks, with Donahue asking her to move on. Her intent was clearly to make the girl sting.

> a "got-him" or "take that" kind of gesture during the Q&A after some remark "trouncing" someone

Once again, do you see why this does not necessarily equate to "bullying" and is not necessarily intended to intimidate?

Maybe I was not clear. I did not say that this was indicative of bullying, but instead indicative of her awareness of her intent to hurt others.

You can intend pain for reasons other than bullying. In that instance, I do not know what the reason was since I cannot remember the question or answer. I do know that I never liked that particular gesture, before or since. It is not quite as bad as flipping the bird at someone, but it has the same emotional root.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

What she did to John Hospers was pure bullying. To Hospers and to her friends and associates who had to go along or get out too. It was always her way or the highway--if she said so. NBI was entirely permeated with this attitude and The Break blew up most of it but unfortunately not all of it. There is no need to go over what she did to Barbara Branden and her husband Frank with her insane affair with Nathaniel that Barbara said would have been better if she hadn't been ostentatiously honest to her victims effectively forcing them to go along with an elaborate chain of rationalization hung from her brains and iron will and living a lie to themselves and to the not to be informed no matter how personally close.

It seems obvious now that writing Atlas Shrugged consumed her and she never really recovered. The only way to write such an opus is to become a control freak. As soon as you aren't everything comes to a halt. She had to live in an artificial, unreal world for 13 years and then stay there the rest of her life. It wasn't an option. She couldn't acknowledge the essential surrealness of her novel or how her great brain unbalanced her. I think her behavior had a lot to do with protecting the world of Atlas Shrugged in all its facets and to be a critic of her was also to be a critic of Atlas--automatically.

This doesn't mean she couldn't be a caring and wonderful person as long as you were *in* with her. She was if you believe what others have written about that. I do.

--Brant

[Selene]

> bullying. [Rand] did it as she gained power. A lot. [MSK]

> Rand the bully was much smaller than Rand everything else [brant]

Michael and Brant, instead of just vaguely saying she was a bully as though that would be obvious, would it be possible for you each to take the time to give a couple strong examples of your claim where this was -intentional-, rather than merely a side effect of her passion and emphatic certainty?

Bullying is a matter of intention: "Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation...In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. The harassment can be verbal, physical and/or emotional." [wikipedia]

I would suspect that even being open and asking everyone to agree to 'the affair' would perhaps be arm-twisting? But I would surmise that she didn't realize that her 'request' had a certain intimidating force. So that there is not an intention to manipulate. [i know that some of these matters are probably discussed in Barbara's book or Nathaniel's, but I am not going to take any one book or memoir or speech by people close to her, whether somewhat critical or very laudatory (as in the case of Peikoff) as definitive, because both critics and admirers can make mistakes when their emotions get involved. When I read the bios, I will try to read both the critical and the laudatory simultaneously. ]

What I'm looking for is if there was a pattern of behavior outside of the affair - in the intellectual realm of her ideas, her tastes in art, etc.

Phil:

Since I went to NBI in NY City in the early '60. When Ayn would ascend to the podium for questions from the novitiate assembled before her, I and my lady would stand off to her left.

Most of the attendees looked like a Jehovah's witness convention. White shirts and solid string ties were the regimen for men and dresses or business skirts for the ladies.

Me, being a NY City boy, and having gone straight from work at the Animal Medical Center where I was working on the final stages of an artificial heart lung kidney dialysis machine with

an amazing Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeon, M.D., was in dungarees and denim shirt.

I specifically watched an almost disdainfully sick grimace come over her face when a particularly adoring young person would ask an xray type question and she would literally "puff up" and verbally crush the person.

It was wrong when I saw it then, it was bullying then and it was edifying to me. She had clay feet. She was very human. I was lucky that I was mature enough to see it because it would have really damaging to be on the other side of your mentor's tormenting you.

Is that sufficient testimony or shall I give you others because there were plenty.

There was an imperiousness that permeated NBI even then and it was not restricted to Ayn either.

When the "break" came, the inevitable schism in a growing movement, the Objectivist Newsletter that arrived at my house to confirm it, I remember saying that I was not surprised.

I had seen subconsciously the elements that would lead to it some 5 years earlier. However, as Michael states, it hurt.

Adam

[ginny]

Phil, are you serious when you say you need examples of Rand's bullying? My first encounter with Objectivism was Peikoff's 76 lecture. I knew nothing and hadn't even finished AS. Didn't even know it was a philosophy. I was just intrigued enough to go to the lectures. In good faith (and yes, total ignorance of the philosophy) I asked an innocent question about something that puzzled me. (I'm not sure the details matter, but if you insist, I can elaborate.) The woman started yelling like a longshoreman. One of the things she said that the person who asked the question shouldn't be at the lectures. Ouch. It apparently never occurred to her that lack of knowledge and context was at the root of the question, not malice.

Interestingly, before the Q&A period, she was signing autographs. Since I had my (unfinished) copy of AS with me, I stood in line. For some reason, once I got to her, I was totally terrified. She asked for my name and I couldn't speak. She asked three times, each time very nicely, patiently and without a trace of sarcasm. Very gracious.

During what was my first encounter with Rand and one of her lectures, I met both a sweetheart of a woman and a yelling nutcase. The fact is, she was both. Deep down, I can't help but believe by that time, she was used to adulation and anyone who was in awe of her was okay with her. Anyone who wasn't - watch out, baby.

To be fair, don't think the need for adulation was the only problem. One of the most horrifying parts of BB's biography is the story of a pre-teen Ayn wanting to get to know a popular, pretty and smart classmate. Out of the blue and without context, AR asks the girl what the most important thing in her life was. The girl, obviously caught off-guard, said her mother. Ayn left "in disgust." Yeah, there's nothing more disgusting that a smart, pretty, popular girl who loves her mother. I think AR's narcisism showed itself pretty early. She just couldn't relate to anyone else's context. Too bad.

[Robert Campbell]

Grant,

I'm sure Dr. Hsieh was trying to curry favor with Leonard Peikoff on that occasion. She's made a number of other public gestures (such as broadcasting her support for his 2006 fatwa to vote for Democrats) that were pretty clearly intended for that purpose.

She has written about honesty in the past. She did not endorse "privacy lies" in those writings. Maybe she was looking for an occasion on which she could "see the light," Peikovian-style?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

The notion of bullying is rather broad. Although some bullies use both fists and words, and people who study the schoolyard variety often see them in combination, the distinction between physical and verbal bullying needs to be kept in mind.

Ayn Rand's bullying was of the verbal kind. She accurately recognized the "argument from intimidation" when it was sprung on her by others, but was far from immune from employing her own versions of it.

In the corporate world, where I spent some time, and in academia, where I've hung around a good deal longer, the kind of bullying I've occasionally had to contend with is of the verbal variety. I don't know of any positive traits of character that lead one to bully others verbally.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

Robert,

My point is that "bullying" is a word that should only be used when something is intentional. The fact that people felt intimidated or that they were silenced or afraid to ask a question does not prove that the speaker wanted to intimidate or silence.

> I don't know of any positive traits of character that lead one to bully others verbally.

Table-pounding or being blinded by passionate outrage to the point of losing context or failing to recognize an innocent question are not positive traits. But they are a more charitable interpretation of how a great mind sometimes thinks.

[jriggenbach]

Table-pounding or being blinded by passionate outrage to the point of losing context or failing to recognize an innocent question are not positive traits.

I would like to go on record at this point in support of table-pounding as a positive trait, especially when it is undertaken with a shoe.

JR

[Selene]

Robert,

My point is that "bullying" is a word that should only be used when something is intentional. The fact that people felt intimidated or that they were silenced or afraid to ask a question does not prove that the speaker wanted to intimidate or silence.

> I don't know of any positive traits of character that lead one to bully others verbally.

Table-pounding or being blinded by passionate outrage to the point of losing context or failing to recognize an innocent question are not positive traits. But they are a more charitable interpretation of how a great mind sometimes thinks.

Phil: AYN WAS A VERBAL BULLY - I OBSERVED IT PERSONALLY. So what? She had her faults. So what?

Jeff from the outside with the Khrushchev reference - swish!

Remember the old saw - pound the law...pound the facts and when you have neither, pound the table!!!

Adam

[Christopher]

It is interesting that other people who have spoken for Objectivism on podiums have also been caught bullying. With my psychology cap on, the first conclusion that came to mind was the idea of normative behavior. Simply put, we behave in social situations as we have observed others before us behave in those situations.

Considering Rand is the exemplar for an Objectivist defender, it is no surprise that others follow suit. I think most intriguing is that many who speak for Objectivism take the role of "defenders:" defenders of free will, defenders against the onslaught of society, defenders of their right to think. This is interesting, isn't it?

One of the key aspects of almost all of Rand's writings is the presence of an enemy, of an individual breaking free of society and social bonds. As a result, I personally believe many Objectivists hold a sense of anger, a sense of being attacked and needing to defend themselves, when following Objectivist standards. Either individuals eventually grow out of this (I had to), or it stays with them forever... they are forever threatened because it is part of the normative self-image of being an Objectivist.

Ironically, implicit within the belief above is an in-group/out-group context, and this of course means the existence of groups... those who think for themselves and those who do not (where did individualism go?!).

Christopher

[Selene]

It is interesting that other people who have spoken for Objectivism on podiums have also been caught bullying. With my psychology cap on, the first conclusion that came to mind was the idea of normative behavior. Simply put, we behave in social situations as we have observed others before us behave in those situations.

Considering Rand is the exemplar for an Objectivist defender, it is no surprise that others follow suit. I think most intriguing is that many who speak for Objectivism take the role of "defenders:" defenders of free will, defenders against the onslaught of society, defenders of their right to think. This is interesting, isn't it?

One of the key aspects of almost all of Rand's writings is the presence of an enemy, of an individual breaking free of society and social bonds. As a result, I personally believe many Objectivists hold a sense of anger, a sense of being attacked and needing to defend themselves, when following Objectivist standards. Either individuals eventually grow out of this (I had to), or it stays with them forever... they are forever threatened because it is part of the normative self-image of being an Objectivist.

Ironically, implicit within the belief above is an in-group/out-group context, and this of course means the existence of groups... those who think for themselves and those who do not (where did individualism go?!).

Christopher

Excellent observation Chris.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

My point is that "bullying" is a word that should only be used when something is intentional. The fact that people felt intimidated or that they were silenced or afraid to ask a question does not prove that the speaker wanted to intimidate or silence.

Phil,

Of course. Bullying involves intent.

If we accept the mythology that Ayn Rand sometimes encouraged about herself, we would have to conclude that she always knew why she felt the way she did; therefore, she not only noticed her audience's reactions, from time to time, but noticed that she did or did not like eliciting them, etc.... I.e., we would have to conclude that she frequently harbored the relevant intent, or she would have stopped doing some of the things she did.

For those who don't accept the mythology, the evidence of facial expressions (as noted by Adam) and body language (as noted by MSK), as well as the comments of people who knew her, all point to intent.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

1. [before starting, Robert, this is not directed at you personally but I want to say that I really detest getting sucked into this **largely improper and often second-hand subtopic** - it involves too little evidence and a lot of speculation of what is hidden beneath somebody's anger - even people who are close to someone run a great risk of psychologizing in this area. Yet Oists on the internet seem to find, over and over and over, Rand's squabbles, angers, emotions a major issue at the expense of more philosophical matters. And are ALWAYS claiming certainty about the motives (usually bad motives not good ones!) of Diana H or Lindsay P or Peikoff or Kelley anyone they don't like or have felt injured by...in this case, Ayn Rand.

I have posted many times - on Atlantis, on Solo, on RoR, etc. - on why this kind of 'certainty' about the internal motives of someone you are seeing through the eyes of someone else - or based on isolated 'flareups' as opposed to a more extended context - is improper epistemologically. So I don't want to keep having to repeat it.]

2. > If we accept the mythology that Ayn Rand sometimes encouraged about herself, we would have to conclude that she always knew why she felt the way she did; therefore, she not only noticed her audience's reactions, from time to time, but noticed that she did or did not like eliciting them, etc.

Of course not! Why on earth would anyone accept such a crazy idea as always being aware, always being fully introspective, being able to account for every emotion. Never being blinded by rage or any strong emotion, so you are not focused on or attentive to the effect you are having? RIDICULOUS. Yes, Rand said she was good at this and she did say -always-? It's psych 101 [it is the topic of attention in psychology + the crow epistemology] that when you are intent on one thing, especially something where you are experiencing strong emotions, you are -diverting your limited focus- into that area.

How silly of her! It just proves that in some areas or on some occasions she was not sensitive enough to people's psychology or overvalued her 'all seing intellect', in regard to judging people and situations and internal emotional states. Has that ever happened to anyone else? You fly into a rage and are oblivious to who you have affected?

Do you think geniuses are immune to this? GIMME A BREAK!! . . . Which is, of course, my point.

3. > the evidence of facial exp​ressions (as noted by Adam) and body language (as noted by MSK)

Robert, do you really consider the interpretations of Adam or MSK about something as lame or fleeting as a 'gesture' or facial expression to be reliable evidence? Plus, how do I put this, I don't consider either of the two individuals to be enormously perceptive master psychologists or observers based on posts I've seen. If they are 'evidence' then I also have evidence - and ***my own encounters with Ayn Rand***- which would support a very different interpretation of her intent. But I don't want to beat this topic to death. I will just state my own conclusion, and that of some others who were even closer to her: She was (sometimes) aware that sometimes people would be intimidated and hold their tongue. Far from wanting it, she did NOT like that, was not pleased by it.

Not only that on many occasions, she made an effort to avoid "rolling over" people in that way. She did NOT intend to bully.

4. > as well as the comments of people who knew her, all point to intent.

But I personally was able to see her exercise enormous tact and made a *considerable effort* not to intimidate anyone. Perhaps you will remember that I posted on this once?

5. Finally, the issue of objectivity in passing judgment: If you are going to allow Adam's and MSK's and some of her friends, then you [[throoghout this post, not you personally but the generic 'you' applying to everyone who has ever participated in the debate over this subtopic]] must factor in **my** counter-observations as a piece of "evidence" as well. As well as Peikoff's observations, which are still a third type of interpretation of Rand's motives. This is not optional. You can't dismiss the one set of observations and only accept those by the people you like.

.................................................

<new topic>

So I don't have to keep posting and reposting points I've already made, I'd like to move to another subject. Robert, you said that Peikoff would leave the Estate of Ayn Rand to his daughter, Kira. Do you have evidence or any statements by anyone close to the topic on this, or is it speculation?

This email is already overlong, but I'd like to point out why this would be an *extremely bad idea* and not in accordance with what Rand would have wanted to happen to control of her copyrights.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I happen to think it entirely possible that Rand fully intended to bully at some times and fully looked down on bullying at other times, depending on the context.

In fact, I believe this observation applies to all human beings with various degrees of difference. I have yet to see a person immune from this.

I have noticed a weird attitude with respect to Rand by lovers and haters. They presume that because Rand did something one way at one time, this is enough "proof" to rationalize her contrary behavior at another time. For these folks, Rand had to be one or the other AT ALL TIMES. She could not be both at differing times like the rest of humanity.

I do not agree with denying Rand this aspect of her human nature. It makes her into a caricature instead of a genius.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> They presume that because Rand did something one way at one time, this is enough "proof" to rationalize her contrary behavior at another time.

Michael, I think that's generally a good point about people.

. . . For example, right at this moment I'm seething with hatred for you and wanting to intimidate every one of your ideas out of existence. But tomorrow, I might simply want to set fire to you then throw you overboard with lead weights attached.

[Dragonfly]

Grant,

I'm sure Dr. Hsieh was trying to curry favor with Leonard Peikoff on that occasion. She's made a number of other public gestures (such as broadcasting her support for his 2006 fatwa to vote for Democrats) that were pretty clearly intended for that purpose.

She has written about honesty in the past. She did not endorse "privacy lies" in those writings. Maybe she was looking for an occasion on which she could "see the light," Peikovian-style?

It's amusing to compare her current sycophantic attitude towards Peikoff with her critical remarks of a few years ago. Whom does she think she's kidding, apart from her little coterie of devoted followers?

[Christopher]

I wouldn't mind having a coterie.

[Robert Campbell]

Robert, you said that Peikoff would leave the Estate of Ayn Rand to his daughter, Kira. Do you have evidence or any statements by anyone close to the topic on this, or is it speculation?

This email is already overlong, but I'd like to point out why this would be an *extremely bad idea* and not in accordance with what Rand would have wanted to happen to control of her copyrights.

Phil,

I can't remember where I first heard that Kira is Leonard Peikoff's legal heiress, so far as the Rand copyrights and other Estate matters are concerned. It's been discussed on this board a number of times, though, so maybe another participant can chime in with specifics that I don't have.

I'm not quite sure what Rand wanted. I wonder whether Dr. Peikoff knows... or whether he has been entirely compliant with such wishes as she did definitely express.

Also, Rand surely didn't anticipate that lobbying from Disney Corp. would extend copyrights to her books so far into the next century: expiration dates of 2052 for Atlas Shrugged, or 2077 for Philosophy: Who Needs It?

In any event, I don't see Kira Peikoff as the worst recipient for these properties. Would you rather Dr. Peikoff had willed them to Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger?

For that matter, how great an idea was it for Rand to make him her heir in the first place?

Robert Campbell

[anonrobt]

Robert, you said that Peikoff would leave the Estate of Ayn Rand to his daughter, Kira. Do you have evidence or any statements by anyone close to the topic on this, or is it speculation?

This email is already overlong, but I'd like to point out why this would be an *extremely bad idea* and not in accordance with what Rand would have wanted to happen to control of her copyrights.

Phil,

I can't remember where I first heard that Kira is Leonard Peikoff's legal heiress, so far as the Rand copyrights and other Estate matters are concerned. It's been discussed on this board a number of times, though, so maybe another participant can chime in with specifics that I don't have.

I'm not quite sure what Rand wanted. I wonder whether Dr. Peikoff knows... or whether he has been entirely compliant with such wishes as she did definitely express.

Also, Rand surely didn't anticipate that lobbying from Disney Corp. would extend copyrights to her books so far into the next century: expiration dates of 2052 for Atlas Shrugged, or 2077 for Philosophy: Who Needs It?

In any event, I don't see Kira Peikoff as the worst recipient for these properties. Would you rather Dr. Peikoff had willed them to Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger?

For that matter, how great an idea was it for Rand to make him her heir in the first place?

Robert Campbell

He was the last of the Indians - whom else could she have?

[Selene]

Robert, you said that Peikoff would leave the Estate of Ayn Rand to his daughter, Kira. Do you have evidence or any statements by anyone close to the topic on this, or is it speculation?

This email is already overlong, but I'd like to point out why this would be an *extremely bad idea* and not in accordance with what Rand would have wanted to happen to control of her copyrights.

Phil,

I can't remember where I first heard that Kira is Leonard Peikoff's legal heiress, so far as the Rand copyrights and other Estate matters are concerned. It's been discussed on this board a number of times, though, so maybe another participant can chime in with specifics that I don't have.

I'm not quite sure what Rand wanted. I wonder whether Dr. Peikoff knows... or whether he has been entirely compliant with such wishes as she did definitely express.

Also, Rand surely didn't anticipate that lobbying from Disney Corp. would extend copyrights to her books so far into the next century: expiration dates of 2052 for Atlas Shrugged, or 2077 for Philosophy: Who Needs It?

In any event, I don't see Kira Peikoff as the worst recipient for these properties. Would you rather Dr. Peikoff had willed them to Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger?

For that matter, how great an idea was it for Rand to make him her heir in the first place?

Robert Campbell

He was the last of the Indians - whom else could she have?

The solution, in due course of time, to the demand-curve conundrum, and the limitations of the Objectivist oral culture, lies in two words:

Kira Peikoff.

Leonard's daughter, when the inevitable time of probate comes, is unlikely to particularly care about who buys, or "honors," or hews to what her father believed. Or her father's mentor, whom she never met. She'll sell the tapes and license the rights to Rand's work strictly as a business proposition. If sales are likely to double with a 40 percent cut in prices, she'll do it. She's not tending a doctrinal flame or wanting to keep the material within the realm of the already-converted.

Even her father faced movie-production facts and sold, outright, no strings, the film rights to Atlas. More material, with time, finds its way onto Websites. The venal motives for opening the Rand archives to fuel Valliant's book have, nonetheless, set a precedent. The control-culture is cracking apart already, even if the clueless, such as Mrs. Hsieh, are behind the curve.

If you doubt that such business realism will arise someday soon on a far broader scale, I have three other words for you:

Lisa Marie Presley.

My friend Rob Morse predicted thirty years ago, when I heard Peikoff's taped Objectivist overview along with him, that the oral culture and the iron-fist control would not end until Rand and everyone who ever knew her personally had died. I was dubious, but every year has given more evidence that he was right.

[Philip Coates]

> In any event, I don't see Kira Peikoff as the worst recipient for these properties. Would you rather Dr. Peikoff had willed them to Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger?

Robert, he also has a wife. So if one assumes family to be the heirs, as is usually the case, it would probably be both Kira and Amy.

But, even if contra Greybird, they are both wanting to do what is beneficial to Objectivism with the copyrights, something that simple and absolute still would not be the best idea if advancing Objectivism is one of his purposes. Here is why:

[Full Disclosure: Leonard has not approached me and said "Phil, please tell me what I should do with my money, and Rand's Estate, and what should be in my will." :-)]

Suppose Kira and/or Amy die. What will happen to the Objectivist properties then? Or if the first marries and/or the second remarries and the husband, who may or may not care much about Objectivism, then has a legal share of what the spouse owns. The legal mechanism to keep control of some property and determine how it is used for generations is called a -trust-. A legally executed trust cannot be broken. In some cases, its provisions are even secret. Say, LP leaves a lump sum in money to his wife and daughter to keep them happy and comfortable. Simultaneously he chooses a reliable trustee to administer the estate under whatever rules, loose or tight, he sets up. This person could be a banker or lawyer. Doesn't even have to be an Oist, simply a trained professional executor. He is legally bound to abide by the rules LP sets up, else he could go to jail. Normally he has some leeway, some judgment calls if the language is written that way, but not much. For example, here is a hypothetical provision, "Every effort shall be made by the law firm of Xerxes and Zeon to have the major works of Rand translated into the ten major languages of the world at a steady pace over the next 50 years."

It sounds vague, but this kind of provision is surprisingly well enforced by trustees and the courts who watch over them. And such general statements can actually be made a bit more specific (not too much, because you want to leave some flexibility to adapt to circumstances like wars, depressions, or whatever.)

I am not Leonard Peikoff, but that is the kind of provision that I would want to absolutely bind my heirs and their heirs and spouses to. Also if either Amy or Kira (let alone others) abandon or lose interest in Oism, or want to spend it all to start a string of colleges or resorts, they couldn't abrogate the terms of a legal trust.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Here's the link to Greybird's post from last year:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5629&view=findpost&p=49619

I don't know how likely Dr. Peikoff is to will any copyrights to Amy, as they are now splitsville.

Also, people who know more about trusts and foundations will have to address this, but my impression, at least, is that the wishes of a person now dead matter a good deal less than the preferences of those to whom control of their property has been entrusted.

I've been reading Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty, so the sudden end to the programs sponsored by the Volker Fund is fresh in my mind.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> they are now splitsville

I didn't know that. Guess I'm out of the loop.

I've had occasion to learn about trusts because of someone close to me. What I've learned is that whatever the dead person put into writing, if unambiguous and not illegal, will be strictly enforced by the courts. So, yes, Peikoff could do what I wrote about with regard to requiring book royalties be used to make translations or otherwise spread Objectivism. My understanding is that a person's clearly stated wishes with regard to the disposition of their belongings tend to be pretty absolutely observed throughout the United States, and a trust is like a will in that regard. The lawyers and judges would not like to have -their- wishes disregarded when it comes time for the same procedures to be applied to them.