Idea that one “right” name can even possibly exist is misguided. Every country will likely have its own (or several of its own) “right” names for something.
Example: the country that I was born in had at least 4-5 different names (in two different scripts) for that gulf. Each one was “the right one” – right for that group of people.
Related cautionary tale: that country no longer exists, partly because some people would not accept that other people might have different names for same things[1], so they decided that the best solution would be to kill the other side who got it wrong and thus solve the disagreements in that way. The other side, quite obviously, did not like that idea.
[1]: of course it was somewhat more complex. There were other disagreements too; not just the one of names of things and places. Some were even more drastic than somewhat different language or being born few dozen kilometers apart or of different dietary preferences - like for example seeing that the other side worship the same God as you do, but in a slightly different way. That one was found to be very disagreeable too. So, it all resulted in bloodbath.
Insisting that there is exactly one right name for some place for everybody, is like the idea that there exist exactly one right food to eat for everybody.
Yet, for rabbit, right food might be carrot. And for wolf, right food might be lamb. Insisting that there is only one right food is wrong, and trying to force that idea can only end badly. Try to force rabbit to live on eating lamb, or wolf to live on eating carrots; and anyone can easily see what the result would be.
But when we translate the same problem to another domain closer to human heart (like names, languages, religions etc), people minds become misted and they forget that simple fact. What is right name of some place to me, is not right name for some place for you. What is correct God for me, might not be correct God for you.
Trying to force “my truth” would be insisting that other people must be slaves to my will, and denying them free will of their own. But as you would not want to be a slave to will of the others, so the others would not want be a slaves to your will. Wolf doesn’t not want be forced by Rabbit to eat carrots, and neither does Rabbit wants to be forced to eat lamb by Wolf.
In the case of such conflict between Wolf and Rabbit; the result is predictable: one will eat the other and thus solve the conflict and live happily ever after. In the case of human affairs, it is slightly more complicated, but is equally likely to end up as bloody mess. No smart man (as in: member of mankind, not just the males of the human species) should want to go there. Heed my advice if you will, or ignore it if you won’t.
Now it seems that you did not understand me afterall. Can you explain what you mean here?
If the name
is removed, how is it that the problem would not be solved? In other words, if there is no name, how can anyone claim that the name is wrong? If it doesn’t exist, surely nobody can complain that it is spelled wrong? If there is no unicorn, how can one seriously argue that unicorns have 5 legs and not 3?
In my idea, the name shown to each individual would be exactly what that individual wants to see. It would thus fulfill the wants of every human exactly as they themselves want it. How would that be bad?
(we can of course argue that it is technically not easy to do, or that it needs extra resources, or that it might take some time, or other issues, but I do not see why you think it would not solve the problem if/when implemented)
Even if you use the name in an international language
I would not. I would show you the Persian name if you want that, and show the other guy the Arabian name if they want that. To myself, I would show Croatian name.
To each his own.