Can an Objectivist become a billionaire?

[KendallJ 0]

Um, my experience is that they are the child prostitution capital of the world. Or are we talking about two different Thailands?

They have crime? Come on. I doubt I could walk down the street in Sao Paolo without getting mugged. Eastern Europe and Russia are stocked in the porn trade.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying their criminal element implies about the Thai people, in general, that you wouldn't do business with ANY of them. Careful here unless you speak from some sort of experience. I've been. My wife studies Muay Thai. The Thai people, in general are some of the most peaceful, friendly people you'll meet on the planet.

[RayK 0]

I'm not sure I agree. Moral standards can both harm you and help you in the short term (of course, unquestionably, they help you in the long term). For example, imagine how much better Microsoft or ALCOA could've fared had they hired a few Ayn Rand admirers to be their ethical advisors. And how about all the great press BB&T received after their big press release - I'm willing to bet it made up for any lost business with contractors.

With all due respect Oakes, I request that you go and look at the average person you are going to be selling your product to and see if they care about ethics or reason. Most of the ones that I have had to deal with in business and life do not. When I am selling a rational product that requires that they be rational and apply self-responsibility, discipline and many other factors to accomplish their stated goals, against a competitor that says forget all that and just take this pill and wake up tomorrow happy and slim (have you watched infomericials lately) it is going to make it more demanding for me. Most of my daily activities with my clients is getting them to think in principles, to think for themselves. I have to get them to rethink all that they think they know about exercise and then apply the new knowledge. If I was unprimcipled I could just lie to them and tell them what most exercise trainers are telling them.

Yes, being an Objectivist will pay off in the long run and sometimes quickly, if in a rational society. But, in a semi-rational society it is going to be more demanding for me in which I say so what, because I cannot change that aspect of society.

On a different note, the reason I think my perspective is different that most other Objectivist is because of when I deal with my clients. I deal with my clients in their leisure time away from their productive work. This is when I have found that the average person discards reason and lacks the same capacity to think properly for themselves. This in turn leads them to make irrational decisions in many different areas. People that would never believe irrational ideas in the work place will believe almost anything outside their main area of production/work, at least this is what I have witnessed.

[Oakes 0]

They have crime? Come on. I doubt I could walk down the street in Sao Paolo without getting mugged. Eastern Europe and Russia are stocked in the porn trade.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying their criminal element implies about the Thai people, in general, that you wouldn't do business with ANY of them. Careful here unless you speak from some sort of experience. I've been. My wife studies Muay Thai. The Thai people, in general are some of the most peaceful, friendly people you'll meet on the planet.

Would you say Sao Paolo deserves the dubious distinction of being the world's mugging capital? I think the extent to which child prostitution exists in Thailand says something about their rule of law. And yes, it says something about the people who do nothing when they see a middle-aged white man walking down the street holding the hand of an 8-year-old Thai kid - but of course, it says nothing of the Thai people in general.

(Not to point out the obvious, but we're getting a bit off-topic here.)

[Oakes 0]

With all due respect Oakes, I request that you go and look at the average person you are going to be selling your product to and see if they care about ethics or reason.

Most people don't care about abstract philosophy, but the response to BB&T's action was pretty astonishing - people liked it on a sense-of-life level. And again, just image the benefit Walmart and other corporations would have if they only took a principled stance against activists and politicians. I can see that being worth much more than the cost-reduction of manufacturing in China, but at any rate, this is all conjecture since I don't have experience in the industry.

[KendallJ 0]

Would you say Sao Paolo deserves the dubious distinction of being the world's mugging capital? I think the extent to which child prostitution exists in Thailand says something about their rule of law. And yes, it says something about the people who do nothing when they see a middle-aged white man walking down the street holding the hand of an 8-year-old Thai kid - but of course, it says nothing of the Thai people in general.

(Not to point out the obvious, but we're getting a bit off-topic here.)

Nope, I'm saying that if it was, it's hardly a basis by which to decide to set up business in Sao Paolo, and actually, I think the factors by which one will ethically decide to do or not to do business in a particular country is right on topic. You're the one who made the assertion. I'm just asking for you to explain it so we can include it into the discussion of what real options a business has to become a billionaire in today's world.

[Oakes 0]

Nope, I'm saying that if it was, it's hardly a basis by which to decide to set up business in Sao Paolo, and actually, I think the factors by which one will ethically decide to do or not to do business in a particular country is right on topic. You're the one who made the assertion. I'm just asking for you to explain it so we can include it into the discussion of what real options a business has to become a billionaire in today's world.

I think the principles are very clear: When possible, do not support nations who fundamentally violate rights. That includes having so pitiful a rule of law that your country's main attraction for tourists is 11-year-old girls. Unlike China, Thailand is economically unimportant, and thus should be an easy country to avoid supporting, no?

[KendallJ 0]

I think the principles are very clear: When possible, do not support nations who fundamentally violate rights. That includes having so pitiful a rule of law that your country's main attraction for tourists is 11-year-old girls. Unlike China, Thailand is economically unimportant, and thus should be an easy country to avoid supporting, no?

Do you have a citation for your principle?

A principle that starts "When possible" leaves an awful lot open to interpretation. So does a statement like "fundamentally violate rights". The U.S. fundamentally violates rights. Now what? Myanmar has solved that whole child prostitution thing because its a totalitarian dictorship that doesn't get many tourists. Which rights? To what extent? How fundamental? All rights? To any extent?

Hey, India looks to have it's own problem with child prostitution. So it looks like your options are shrinking again, even the one you advocated.

Actually,the principle that most people seem to be espousing here and in the China thread is not to support nations that are direct threats (i.e. enemies) to the United States, which Thailand is certainly not, and China debatably is (and Iran most certainly is).

Rand on moral judgement:

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgement does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of "saving everyone's soul" - nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; ( that one must make one's moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

VOS, Rational life in an Irrational Society

The idea that I can't find a moral man or company in Thailand to do business with, or that such dealings somehow supports child prostitution simply by virtue of the fact that the man or business is Thai is ludicrous. I find it hard to believe that the policy of moral judgement espoused by Rand makes my ethically clean business dealing in Thailand ethically tied to criminal activity in Thailand simply by virtue of the fact that it is within the country's borders.

[Oakes 0]

Do you have a citation for your principle?

What makes you think I'm quoting anyone?

A principle that starts "When possible" leaves an awful lot open to interpretation. So does a statement like "fundamentally violate rights". The U.S. fundamentally violates rights. Now what?

The U.S. does not fundamentally violate rights - if it did, we would be fighting in a guerilla underground right now. The "when possible" rule is one already explained in the China thread.

Hey, India looks to have it's own problem with child prostitution.

Um, quoting an August 1987 article you found via Google in a few seconds does not in any way show that India's child prostitution levels are near that of Thailand's, who is notorious for this.

Actually,the principle that most people seem to be espousing here and in the China thread is not to support nations that are direct threats (i.e. enemies) to the United States, which Thailand is certainly not, and China debatably is (and Iran most certainly is).

I'm not sure what other people are espousing, nor do I care. As a businessman, I wouldn't want to support a nation whose tourist industry is funded by perverts unimpeded by an incompetent government, even if that government isn't a military threat. You can continue to insist that it is normal criminal activity, not a governmental problem, but please don't rely on the help of Ayn Rand quotes like yours - I'm not trying to save any kid's soul. Just their virginity.

[KendallJ 0]

What makes you think I'm quoting anyone?

Citing yourself would have been fine. I looked back through your every post in the thread. This is the first time you espoused such principles. For them to have been clear, they have to have been somewhere else. You didn't provide a link (even back to the place where you first espoused them) or a reference so the claim of clarity is a bit lacking. Well, if they are your ideas alone, I'm not much interested in debating your personal philosophy.

Um, quoting an August 1987 article you found via Google in a few seconds does not in any way show that India's child prostitution levels are near that of Thailand's, who is notorious for this.

So fundamentally violating fewer people's rights is ok, just don't be the country to claim the top spot in any category? hmmm. That's not what your clear principles stated. To contradict your clear principles I simply would need to show to such criminal activity occurs in any country you'd propose. What level of child prostitution is enough in a country for you to do business with it? A 30 second Google search is fine for just that task. There's a long list of others too.

I'm not sure what other people are espousing, nor do I care. As a businessman, I wouldn't want to support a nation whose tourist industry is funded by perverts unimpeded by an incompetent government, even if that government isn't a military threat. You can continue to insist that it is normal criminal activity, not a governmental problem, but please don't rely on the help of Ayn Rand quotes like yours - I'm not trying to save any kid's soul. Just their virginity.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Your option for sure, but you have a long way to go in substantiating your principle. Oakesism is of no interest to me. Just Objectivism.

[Oakes 0]

Well, if they are your ideas alone, I'm not much interested in debating your personal philosophy.

What are you interested in debating? Nobody here is a spokesman for Objectivism, so if you're looking for such a person to debate with, you're out of luck.

So fundamentally violating fewer people's rights is ok, just don't be the country to claim the top spot in any category?

Wrong. It becomes time to boycott them when the government is complicit in the act. Hell this was even made clear in the article you linked to:

In Thailand child prostitution is relatively discrete and tolerated by police.

http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Child/prostitution.htm

[RayK 0]

Ray, when you reach that point, let me know. I have this experiment I would like to run ...

Stephen, I will happily let you know when the day comes.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

The idea that I can't find a moral man or company in Thailand to do business with, or that such dealings somehow supports child prostitution simply by virtue of the fact that the man or business is Thai is ludicrous. I find it hard to believe that the policy of moral judgement espoused by Rand makes my ethically clean business dealing in Thailand ethically tied to criminal activity in Thailand simply by virtue of the fact that it is within the country's borders.

Do you pay taxes to the government of Thailand at any level?

[KendallJ 0]

Do you pay taxes to the government of Thailand at any level?

Hi Burgess,

First off, just for clarification, the "my business dealing" in the quote you pulled is hypothetical. I don't do business in Thailand personally. I've been to the country, am vaguely familiar with it's government structure, and am familiar with its economy and culture.

That said, I would expect that any business dealing would result in taxes paid to the Thai government, either by a partner I did business with, or in the case of a JV, directly.

While this might be cause for concern in a general analysis, I do not think the specifics of this case allow a connection to be made through this route. I refer back to the reference that Stephen brought to light in the China thread regarding businessmen doing business with the US and foreign nations.

Ayn Rand Answers @ pp. 99-100, 1978 Ford Hall Forum)

Is it moral to sell goods to our government and to foreign governments, when the source of government funds is expropriated wealth?

It's certainly moral for an American businessman to sell goods to our government, to the extent to which it is moral for him to exist. He cannot accept moral responsibility for actions or policies over which he has no control. Government money is expropriated funds. Nevertheless, the moral blame falls on the government and on advocates of taxation, not on the businessman. It is not his job, qua businessman, to worry about the source of government funds. But it is his job, politically, to condemn government power and taxation, which today, unfortunately, businessmen don't do.

Whether he should deal with foreign governments is a different issue. You need to judge each case according to the nature of the particular government. It is totally immoral to deal with Soviet Russia, as it was to deal with Nazi Germany, or any genuine dictatorship.

(bold mine)

As I read it, this is in the context of doing business directly with the Thai government; however, I would take the aspect of doing business with an entity that pays taxes as being one level further removed in terms of the ethical implications.

Thailand is hardly a dictatorship. While they have had a history of strong military influence in politics, that has subsided significantly in the last 20 years and it appears that they have a strong civilian mixed economy, nominally a constitutional monarchy since 1932. If I understand your characterization of principled mixed economy correctly, then I would say that this is what Thailand has. In the last 15 years the government has begun to deal more strongly with criminal elements including the sex trade, which is primarily a trade in sexual tourism resulting from a country with relatively open travel policies, and a product which seems to be highly attractive to outsiders. This fact is true of most southeast Asian countries that have liberal border policies. Thailand has the best relations with the western worlds in Southeast Asia because of its relative stability in the region for a long period of time, so I would expect the sex trade to be highest there as a result.

I have no data, and no one has supplied any that this is the result of some sort of overt government policy or some hidden philosophical foundation in the Thai government that would indicate. Stated Thai policy is strongly otherwise. At best this is criminal activity, possibly overlooked by virtue of the fact of internal government corruption, but then this fact is true of almost any country on some criminal aspect. The data I have to the contrary, and the really ironic part of this is that in the cultural mainstream of Thailand, the Thai people, value, take joy in, and protect their own children more than any culture I have witnessed. I experienced this first hand. Family bonds, and children of even extended family relationships are highly valued. The benevolence with which my child was treated, and looked after and protected by even extended family and friends of my Thai friends with whom we were travelling was stunning. It surpassed anything I have seen in the U.S. and for a third world country it bordered on magical.

So based upon my contextual analysis, Thailand is neither an immenent security threat to the US, nor is it any sort of genuine dictarship, nor is it suffering from any sort of philsophical immorality outside that ascribed to any other 3rd world principled mixed economy. It has crime, yes. But that strikes me as insufficient. Based on my understanding of Rand's principles then, I cannot accept moral responsibility for actions over which I have no control, were I to deal with a private, principled Thai businessman whose only crime is paying taxes to his government.

I'm happy to entertain a principled analysis by an Objectivist to the contrary, if you have one. If you think I've mis-applied Rands principles in some way, I'd be happy to listen to your perspect as well.

The China thread is a more interesting example of these principles so I'll probably head that way more than continue discussion on this post.

[KendallJ 0]

The China thread is a more interesting example of these principles so I'll probably head that way more than continue discussion on this post.

Just an aside for you Burgess. Thailand is an interesting example in that it was never colonized by Western powers, and while it has certainly been influenced by Western thought, has progress from Monarchy to its current mixed economy relatively peacefully.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I asked the question about taxation as a start on distinguishing between support (in one sense of the term) and sanction. If I pay taxes to a government, I am financially supporting what that government does. That, by itself, does not mean that I give it sanction, that is, moral support. One can be a victim of a government even while supporting it financially.

What I find to be an interesting issue, and one I haven't resolved, is the following. I must live somewhere, in some country. If I do, then to live a full life, I must conform to its laws (assuming it is half-way civilized). But I don't need to financially support other governments. What moral principles apply here?

That it is wrong to willingly support foreign governments which are a threat to my life is clear. Beyond that, I don't know. I haven't thought it through yet.

Thailand has the best relations with the western worlds in Southeast Asia because of its relative stability in the region for a long period of time, so I would expect the sex trade to be highest there as a result.

I don't follow that reasoning.

I have no data, and no one has supplied any that this is the result of some sort of overt government policy or some hidden philosophical foundation in the Thai government that would indicate. Stated Thai policy is strongly otherwise. At best this is criminal activity, possibly overlooked by virtue of the fact of internal government corruption, but then this fact is true of almost any country on some criminal aspect.

If I were performing philosophical detection on this apparent tolerance for slave-masters and the rape of children, I might begin by trying to see if the dominant worldview contains such ideas as: "What happens to us in this life is a result of what we did in past lives." The idea of reincarnation can be used to justify a lot of horrors, as in India. I don't know about Thai culture.

The data I have to the contrary, and the really ironic part of this is that in the cultural mainstream of Thailand, the Thai people, value, take joy in, and protect their own children more than any culture I have witnessed.

Do they translate that into political or other social action? Are there Thai organizations loudly exposing the slave masters? (Child prostitution is a particularly repugnant form of slave labor, and forced adult prostitution is close by.) I wonder too if the Thai government has severe penalties -- actually enforced -- for these slave masters. That would be an indicator of whether the society in general opposes the enslavement of children (or anyone else).

It has crime, yes. But that strikes me as insufficient.

My view is that the presence of crime (real crime, not phony statist crimes), itself, is not an indictment of a government or a whole society. However, if the crime is widespread, known to exist, and yet tolerated either through corruption or simply not caring, then that condition is an indictment of the government (and the people who willingly support it). A government that, for example, spends more money on maintaining tourist sites than it does on ruthlessly crushing the slave masters, is an ethically corrupt government -- one that deserves condemnation.

(I am assuming here that the articles I have read over the years, the articles describing a continuing, large-scale, and even open existence of slavery -- are generally true. I am also assuming that what I have read about general tolerance -- for this slavery and rape -- from most Thai police officers, politicians, and Thai citizens in general -- is also true.)

I share the revulsion that Oakes feels, a revulsion for slave-masters and serial rapists -- but, wherever they are found, be it Thailand, India, or our corrupt neighbor to the south, Mexico.

Unless anyone needs clarification of what I have suggested, I doubt I have anything else to offer.

[Joss Delage 0]

For example, imagine how much better Microsoft (...) could've fared had they hired a few Ayn Rand admirers to be their ethical advisors.

I'd love to get specific examples here. Personally, I think it likely that MSFT would have been destroyed as a company by the DOJ if they had taken a principled approach.

[Joss Delage 0]

That includes having so pitiful a rule of law that your country's main attraction for tourists is 11-year-old girls.

What do you base this assessment on? That there is child prostitution in Thailand is one thing. Saying that it is the main attraction of the country is alltogether a different thing.

[Joss Delage 0]

Well, you must know far more about the fair market value of ALL of the assets of Communist Russia than I do.

I don't need to know the fair market value of those assets to know that they have not been privatized ethically.

I'm curious. Since you are implying that the mechanism by which ALL oligarchs came by their assets is highly unethical. What do you think would be the proper way to privatize previously communist assets?

One way is to float the asset on the stock market (IPO) with no ownership restrictions and use the proceeds to fund law enforcement and other right-protection initiatives, or reduce taxes, pay back debt, etc.

[Oakes 0]

What do you base this assessment on? That there is child prostitution in Thailand is one thing. Saying that it is the main attraction of the country is alltogether a different thing.

I figured it was common knowledge that Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Yunnan, Laos, and China were common stopping points for sex tourists. I might also include the Phillipines, which I lived in and my parents have told me a lot about. It's a big-profit industry in an otherwise dirt-poor part of the world. Obviously there are people who go for the rice cakes and Buddhist monuments, but nevertheless I think "main attraction" is a fitting term (even if a little hyperbolic).

If you want articles to back it up, my university has access to ProQuest, LexisNexis, Newsbank and many other very big newspaper databases that I use regularly. You can find some pretty interesting stuff in there. (I'm at work at the moment so I'll have to cut this short for now.)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I figured it was common knowledge that Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Yunnan, Laos, and China were common stopping points for sex tourists....

If you want articles to back it up ...

I know very little about all the facts involved here, but I did read this Bloomberg report a couple of days ago, and it substantiates your claim above. I find this open attitude towards child prostitution to be unbearably disgusting (as if I needed further reason to despise a number of the countries involved).

[Joss Delage 0]

Oakes - I am not disagreeing with you that Thailand is a key destination for sex-predators. However, until I see some credible numbers, I don't believe that child sex abuse is anywhere close to being the main reason to visit Thailand. Child sex tourism is also completely different from (non-child) sex tourism, and we should not dump them together.

Personnally, I'm planning to one day soon go to Thailand for scubadiving. Phuket island is one of the best destinations in the world for this, or so I've been told.

[A.West 0]

Oakes, I respect most of what you post, but you are engaging in a major logical fallacy if you insist that sex trades are dominant parts of the Thai or Chinese economies. (Though for Thailand it may represent a small segment of a small but significant segment of its economy). It's simply a big part of what Americans on the internet are exposed to when they are exposed to stories about Thailand. My guess is you're not tracking Thai agriculture, light manufacturing, financial services, etc. Stories about rising motorcycle, palm oil, prawn, or rubber production don't get as much attention.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Oakes, I respect most of what you post, but you are engaging in a major logical fallacy if you insist that sex trades are dominant parts of the Thai or Chinese economies. (Though for Thailand it may represent a small segment of a small but significant segment of its economy). It's simply a big part of what Americans on the internet are exposed to when they are exposed to stories about Thailand. My guess is you're not tracking Thai agriculture, light manufacturing, financial services, etc. Stories about rising motorcycle, palm oil, prawn, or rubber production don't get as much attention.

First, you've changed the issue here. Oakes' claim was "main attraction for tourists," not "dominant parts of the Thai or Chinese economies." Those can be two entirely different things.

Second, according to this UNICEF report, from 1993-1995 prostitution accounted for 10% to 14% of Thailand's GDP, with children being a third of those prostitutes. Child prostitution, then, translates to about 3.3% to 4.6% of the country's GDP. I find that astonishing. And disgusting.

Third, Oakes did admit to hyperbole in his "main attraction" comment, and, as Joss asked in a prior post, it would be interesting to see actual figures on tourism. I doubt that such figures are available, but I find the 3.3% to 4.6% of GDP attributed to child sex to be shocking enough for me.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Stories about rising motorcycle, palm oil, prawn, or rubber production don't get as much attention.

You are right, if the task is to assess a whole economy. But the issue here is morally evaluating a culture for its essential characteristics.

If the year were 1850 and the subject were to be Georgia or other southern states in the U.S., which would be the relevant moral issue -- the magnificence of cotton production or the evil of slave labor?

In both cases, of Thailand and the Deep South, the question should arise of what characteristic of the culture at large allows the evil to flourish?

[A.West 0]

According to that UNICEF report, over 80% of kids in Costa Rica are sexually abused by 12, and about 50% of those kids interviewed were working prostitutes and drug addicts. Reading that UNICEF report, the entire world looks like a bunch of perverts.

Still, while the prostitution question of Thailand is an interesting question, the government has been making efforts to control the underage prostitution and associated drug addiction problems. I certainly don't think Toyota's investments in automotive manufacturing in Thailand (tying this back to the billionaires question) are immoral because the country has this problem, and if anything, will help reduce the problem, giving people more rewarding employment opportunities.