Can an Objectivist become a billionaire?

[Oakes 0]

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.

I highly, highly doubt that child prostitution is the result of a lack of "rewarding employment opportunities." I don't recall the United States ever going through a bout of child rape as it industrialized, for example. In fact, you've assumed the very thing we are still debating: whether Southeast Asia is simply experiencing "growing pains" or whether the governments therein are being negligent. If it's the latter, investing in those countries will absolutely not help solve the problem, and will probably make it worse.

[Jay P 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 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.

Haven't seen the infomercials, but glancing at supermarket tabloids that claim one can do things like get slim and fit by eating pickles, chocolate and grapefruit, I have a pretty good idea of the mentality you're dealing with.

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.

It may be true that your customers don't explicitly care about ethics or reason, so that if they see you praciticing good principles, it won't get you any more business. I don't know. But when I think of Objectivism helping somebody in his job (including somebody who runs a business), what I'm thinking of is the direct benefit of an Objectivist just being able to think more clearly, plan long term, not evade reality, and in general act rationally. So in that sense, I claim that Objectivism will help somebody succeed, and it will do so largely independent of whether other people (employers, clients, coworkers) know he's an Objectivist. It's just the general advantage of understanding and living by a true philosophy.

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.

That's an interesting point. I've always said that work brings out the best in people, so you're having to deal with them when they're not at their best.... Hmmm.

[Joss Delage 0]

We're way off topic, but this is important.

Stephen - do you consider the UNICEF a credible source for those figures? My gut reaction is to distrust anything coming from the UN as a self-promoting, existence-justifying exercise of propaganda, but I have no direct experience with the UNICEF. I do find the report appalingly poor in hard data, and it seems obvious to me that the UNICEF has a vested interest in exaggerating the (very real) problem.

The report says that in the US, 104,000 children are victim of sexual assault each year (see p. 7). I find that more than a little surprising, even though that would only represent 0.2% of the sub-15 US population.

Note that the report doesn't say that 1/3 of those Thai prostitutes were children - they say minors. I think there's a huge difference between a 10 or 12 year old and a 16 or 17 year old in that respect (not that any of those two is OK). Personally, I find the writing eerily similar to that of anti-gun groups in the US who conveniently include 17-yr old gang members in their "children victims" numbers.

[Stephen Speicher 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.

I'm not sure what we are talking about here anymore. My comments were addressing Oakes' claim about tourism in Thailand and the connection to child prostitution, and I was truly shocked that that revolting practice ran rampant in that country. If you are now asking about Toyota's manufacturing plants there, all I can say is that if it were my company I sure as hell would not go to Thailand to save a buck. But, then again, I'm the one that wouldn't deal with China, but others seem to have no moral concern about doing so.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Stephen - do you consider the UNICEF a credible source for those figures?

I'm ignorant of the subject and the UNICEF study was the first one significantly referenced, so I held my nose and pointed to it. I can't vouch for the specific figures, but they seemed consistent with a few other more brief reports I found.

In normal research I certainly would not consider UNICEF as my preferred source, but I wouldn't discount them out of hand.

[Oakes 0]

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.

Very sorry, I must have missed this earlier today. What specific examples do you want? Obviously, no business has ever challenged antitrust on principle. I've already said in this thread that acting on principle could lead to a mixture of harm and good in the short term, and I believe that applies here as well. What makes you think they would have been destroyed?

[Joss Delage 0]

Very sorry, I must have missed this earlier today. What specific examples do you want?

You had said "For example, imagine how much better Microsoft (...) could've fared had they hired a few Ayn Rand admirers to be their ethical advisors." I was wondering if you had specific ideas of how better MSFT would have fared - in what areas, regarding which initiatives, etc. There are only a few areas where ethicists would have had a major role recently:

- Antimonopoly rulings in the US and Europe;

- Decision to invest heavily in China (and some other countries).

What makes you think they would have been destroyed?

The DOJ came very close to splitting up the company, which would have destroyed it. If they had taken a defiant approach, it would have turned very ugly in my opinion.

[~Sophia~ 0]

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.

Are pills or other methods as effective? In case of pills, I maybe wrong, but I think they are not. People spend the money, hoping for an easy solution, but never actually achieve their goal. You can make money from selling pills on TV because of wide exposure - but they tend to be a one time purchase. In your specific situation, since your method produces results shouldn't that give you an advantage?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Personally, I think it likely that MSFT would have been destroyed as a company by the DOJ if they had taken a principled approach.

And,

The DOJ came very close to splitting up the company, which would have destroyed it. If they had taken a defiant approach, it would have turned very ugly in my opinion.

By "defiant" I assume you mean "principled," as you stated in the first quote above. So, are you claiming that an act of appeasement was in their self-interest, as opposed to taking a principled stand against the government?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

The DOJ came very close to splitting up the company, which would have destroyed it. If they had taken a defiant approach, it would have turned very ugly in my opinion.

To me personally, because of a long-term interest in the history of intellectual debate, the point you are raising is very interesting. I think it is also worth pursuing because it does tie into the topic of this thread.

I do not hold that a victim of nonobjective laws must speak against those laws. That is a personal decision for the owner, based on his goals and the circumstances.

However, I can imagine myself speaking out, either directly or through hired speakers. If I owned a large company -- say, worth one billion -- I would speak out, urging the abolition of those laws and spelling out the proper ethical and political objections to them. (The situation might be different ethically and legally if the company were owned by thousands of stockholders.) I would speak out even if doing so meant my company would be shrunk or even terminated. The price would be worth it.

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

To Joss: What do you mean by "ugly"?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

I would stand up proud and tall and tell them that I produced the product, I own it, and that I have every right to sell it as I see fit. I would further say that they may force me to do their bidding, but that they cannot claim to do so by right. I would do this because I value the ideas that made my product possible.

[RayK 0]

It may be true that your customers don't explicitly care about ethics or reason, so that if they see you praciticing good principles, it won't get you any more business. I don't know. But when I think of Objectivism helping somebody in his job (including somebody who runs a business), what I'm thinking of is the direct benefit of an Objectivist just being able to think more clearly, plan long term, not evade reality, and in general act rationally. So in that sense, I claim that Objectivism will help somebody succeed, and it will do so largely independent of whether other people (employers, clients, coworkers) know he's an Objectivist. It's just the general advantage of understanding and living by a true philosophy.

Jay, I agree with your statements, being an Objectivist helps me in my business, and also my daily life.

What I was trying to get answered with my main thread question was that in a morally and philosophically corrupt society, does an Objectivist have a chance to even become a billionaire. I now, do not think that America is so far gone that it cannot be done, but todays unprincipled Americans do make it harder. They make it harder by putting laws, taxation and other obstacles in my way at every turn.

[RayK 0]

Are pills or other methods as effective? In case of pills, I maybe wrong, but I think they are not. People spend the money, hoping for an easy solution, but never actually achieve their goal. You can make money from selling pills on TV because of wide exposure - but they tend to be a one time purchase. In your specific situation, since your method produces results shouldn't that give you an advantage?

Sophia, you are correct, as pills are not as effective.

In my situation my methods produce results only when people follow the fundamentals/principles of the specific protocal, diet and exercise. Trying to get people to think in principles is what and where I spend most of my time with my clients. But, when they do begin to think in principles it is an amazing thing to watch. It is an amzing thing to observe because they start to apply them to all aspects of there lifes. These type of people become my best sales people as all their friends want the progress that their friend or relative is creating.

[RayK 0]

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

I can state what I have done already, I speak out at every chance I get. Does this harm me through a loss of clients or monetarily, maybe so. But, those are not the type of clients I am trying to attract. I am trying to attract the best possible that want to achieve a better/enhanced life. And, those type of clients love that I am principled and willing to fight, no matter the consequences.

(As a matter of fact most of them have come up to me and directly stated that I am the most principled person that they have ever met and one of the main reasons that they come.)

[MichaelJ 0]

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

I would speak out against those laws.

I have in my mind a certain series of products that I want to build. And not just build but also how they should be built. Which features should they include, how they will achieve certain tasks and so on.

I couldn't bear to have my work that I have spent years designing and building, disfigured by someone else. I would defend my work.

I really love software. I really love thinking of how I can make tasks involving content easier. I love the creativity in solving the problems I set before myself. I love building things and knowing that they are mine in the most intimate way possible, that they came from my mind.

Whenever the government interferes, I am no longer a programmer. I am no longer building what I want to build, I become merely a robot doing the governments instructions. I am no longer building what I love.

Anything I had built previously then becomes seized and used for the new government robot instructions. Seized by the blackmail that if I want to see even what I had built survive, that I have to disfigure it. I love my work far too much. Hence why I would fight even if my company goes down the drain bankrupt.

How I would deal with shareholders if I ever have any? I would make extremely sure that it is spelt out in my companies charter. So if they see government action coming my way, they can each decide for themselves if they want to fight with me or pull their money out before they lose it.

[Oakes 0]

I was wondering if you had specific ideas of how better MSFT would have fared - in what areas, regarding which initiatives, etc.

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

To answer both of you, I thought about this a lot, and I think I would take a different approach than everyone else. I would not huff and puff, stomp around, call the DOJ a bunch of bozos, and attempt to educate everyone on a long line of abstract philosophical principles, as tempting as it would be. Most of these people - the DOJ bureaucrats and politicians - are concrete thinkers, so you should treat them as such, just as you would treat a child.

To me, that means I need to show, not tell. Instead of Atlas-style speeches and polemical press releases, I'd replace my company's website (Microsoft.com) with a large graphic that reads: Thanks for choosing Internet Explorer. We recently made it a free addition to Windows. If you feel this is anti-consumer, please click here and pay us $49.99 for it.

I'd also make use of well-established debate principles like the following three that I found in a book on negotiation (they apply equally well here):

Nurturing: Keep them from getting on the defensive. Instead of arguing angrily, tell them why they're wrong and mix your message with some genuine complements (the government isn't all bad, after all).

Reversing: Avoid being on the receiving end of all the attacks. If your company's honesty is brought into question, point out dishonesty on the part of the DOJ (keeping "nurturing" in mind along the way).

Connecting: Constantly ask questions and be genuinely concerned with understanding what the other guy is trying to say. When a bureaucrat says your company is harming competition, it's too tempting to respond "And I intend to keep doing so!" Here's a better response: "What do you mean by harming competition, and does that differ from harming competitors?" Better to keep prying until they find themselves in a dead end without you even having to point it out.

The end goal would be to expose antitrust as a vague jumble of laws that do nothing but punish legitimate businessmen. But I'd do it in a way that involved very little explicit philosophizing, but instead built on the implicit sense of life that most Americans (including bureaucrats) have within them. Hopefully, this would result in no prosecution. You could argue that Microsoft already achieved that goal, but they did so whilst having the specter of prosecution hanging over them for many years afterward. I wouldn't call that a win.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Coming in late, but getting back to the original question --

I don't think the goal of becoming a billionaire is necessarily desirable. The most important thing is to have enough money to live the way you want to live and be able to do what you want to do. Often just a measly million will suffice.

If your ambitions and scale of operations require a billion dollars, there are many honest ways of raising the money from customers and investors by offering them honest, rational values. One recent billionaire is J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, and most Objectivists I know completely approve of the way she made her money.

Being an Objectivist is a definite advantage when dealing with rational OR irrational people in business as it is in life in general. Our philosophy gives us valuable guidance in sorting out the Good Guys from the Bad Guys. As a result, we are less likely to choose the wrong business partners and employees and more likely to deal with people who offer us values and can be trusted. We can see trouble coming sooner than the non-philosophically savvy and avoid it, buy insurance against it, deal with most effectively, etc.

Being an Objectivist has always been a competitive advantage for me in business and I can't imagine how it could ever be a handicap.

[RayK 0]

I see being or becoming a billionaire as a challenge. It is a challenge for me to produce enough that trading that produce (what ever it is), will bring me that billion dollars. It is also a small elite group that if used as a proper standard is one way to measure your growth.

If "pride demands moral ambition" and I think it does, then I must constantly try and learn more, do more, create more, enjoy life more. Would I want to meet me? This is a great question that keeps driving me to the next level. I want to meet the greats in any field (great, defined by me), and trade value for value.

John D. Rockefeller Sr. for example made 90 million dollars in a 9 month period, thats production, thats profit, thats wealth creation, which can be life enhancing. Thomas Edison developed many ideas that turned into great wealth and over 1000 patents. Donald Trump (although I do not approve of everything he has done), was at one time over a billion dollars in debt. Yes, that is correct over a billion, and I think it was close to 9.2 billion dollars, and he pulled himself out of it.

I do not see anything wrong with wanting to become a billionaire and with Objectivism as my guide my chances are enhanced. But, if I never make it, it will not crush me as long as I remain heroic according to my own moral code.

[RayK 0]

I want to live life to my fullest capacity by obtaining and surrounding myself with as many values as I can. I know what it is that I value and what I want to obtain as values. These values obviously vary according to different aspects of my life, to include education, relationships, homes, fine jewelry, trips, and many others. But, without the wealth that my prodcution brings I cannot obtain as many values or any values that I want.

The main reason I would and do strive for a billion dollars is because I have a lot of values to obtain in my life. I am an esteemed valuer and I want to fill my life with as many values as possible. I hold a high standard for the things that I value and that high standard, most times, comes at a high cost.

A few examples;

A house on the beach http://www.ehomesell.com/Listings/ListingD...X?LID=14801106#

A house on the water http://www.millenniumsuperyachts.com/dhtml.../140photo1.html

A nice trip http://disneycruise.disney.go.com/dcl/en_US/index?bhcp=1

A nice car http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/cars/slr_gallery.htm

A nice watch http://www.forbes.com/collecting/2004/12/0...s_1201feat.html

Like this one that I bought for my wife for a gift http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate....t=5&item=141432

And of couse my wife and children that come at a very high cost (not always monetarily), that I am willing to pay.

I love life and want to suck in every last breath with as many values that I choose to obtain, even if I cannot obtain them all.

[A.West 0]

Coming in late, but getting back to the original question --

I don't think the goal of becoming a billionaire is necessarily desirable. The most important thing is to have enough money to live the way you want to live and be able to do what you want to do. Often just a measly million will suffice.

If your ambitions and scale of operations require a billion dollars, there are many honest ways of raising the money from customers and investors by offering them honest, rational values. One recent billionaire is J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, and most Objectivists I know completely approve of the way she made her money.

Being an Objectivist is a definite advantage when dealing with rational OR irrational people in business as it is in life in general. Our philosophy gives us valuable guidance in sorting out the Good Guys from the Bad Guys. As a result, we are less likely to choose the wrong business partners and employees and more likely to deal with people who offer us values and can be trusted. We can see trouble coming sooner than the non-philosophically savvy and avoid it, buy insurance against it, deal with most effectively, etc.

Being an Objectivist has always been a competitive advantage for me in business and I can't imagine how it could ever be a handicap.

I agree with Betsy on pretty much all counts. To become a billionaire through accumulated profit, you must create economic value added on a vast scale. Meaning, revolutionize an industry or create a new industry, while owning and running your own company. Or successfully starting a company and turning it into a major player in a large industry. There are a few other ways that are much less reliable. The people who do this are generally very focused on whatever industry/activity they are in, perhaps obsessed with it. They are rarely focused on "being rich," especially early on. Most of them are also great marketers (directly or indirectly).

Objectivism has also been of great assistance to me in my career (investment analysis & management), primarily because of the epistomological clarity it offers. Helping me identify useful concepts from faulty concepts, build valid conceptual structures, helping me avoid irrational biases, etc.

[Arnold 0]

Coming in late, but getting back to the original question --

I don't think the goal of becoming a billionaire is necessarily desirable. The most important thing is to have enough money to live the way you want to live and be able to do what you want to do. Often just a measly million will suffice.

If your ambitions and scale of operations require a billion dollars, there are many honest ways of raising the money from customers and investors by offering them honest, rational values. One recent billionaire is J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, and most Objectivists I know completely approve of the way she made her money.

Happiness is not proportional to wealth (as you imply). When I was younger, I thought I could never be completely satisfied until I had everything my heart desired, and thus wealth was essential to happiness. Many years later, I find my material desires well satisfied with less, and want for nothing. It pays to remember that there are happy poor people, and billionaires who leap off bridges.

From what I have seen, wealth accumulation is usually the result of, rather than the goal of endeavour.

One point about accumulating wealth; you cannot do it on your own. By this, I mean you need the leverage of scale. Your idea has to be materialized by millions, each of whom reward you with part of the proceeds. For example, J.K. Rowling mentioned above. Without employing the book industry, she could not herself get enough books out to become rich. Similarly, Ray will need to leverage his ideas via others, such as with franchises. One man cannot do it on his own.

[Joss Delage 0]

However, I can imagine myself speaking out, either directly or through hired speakers. If I owned a large company -- say, worth one billion -- I would speak out, urging the abolition of those laws and spelling out the proper ethical and political objections to them. (The situation might be different ethically and legally if the company were owned by thousands of stockholders.) I would speak out even if doing so meant my company would be shrunk or even terminated. The price would be worth it.

To anyone: What would you do, and why?

I would probably speak out, but not if I were in the situation of MSFT - i.e., directly under attack by organizations that have an absolute power to destroy my company and the value it produces.

To Joss: What do you mean by "ugly"?

The short term outcome would have been much worse, and probably destructive.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I would probably speak out, but not if I were in the situation of MSFT - i.e., directly under attack by organizations that have an absolute power to destroy my company and the value it produces. [...]

The short term outcome would have been much worse, and probably destructive.

Yes, but worse in what way, and destructive in what way? Would you have expected the federal government to obliterate the company, seize its assets, imprison its management -- or even worse than that?

[RayK 0]

I am not saying that wealth is the direct cause of my happiness, it is a tool that I can use to obtain my values. Happiness is a secondary consequence of achieving one's values. In a society where values are traded for values, the more wealth I can create the more values I can trade for. Art, houses, food, vacations or time to relax is never free. I am producing so that I can enjoy more of all of those values mentioned and more.

I have already been down the road of poverty and I did not like it. I have spent time in an apartment that cost me $175 a month and wondered how I was going to pay the rent, which I always did. I have spent winters in New York huddled around a kerosene heater on frozen floors watching my breath. I have eaten mayonasse and mustard sandwiches for lunch and dinner because that is all I could afford at those times. I have bought my own clothes since I was fourteen, paid for my own food since I was sixteen. I bought my first pair of Nikes in the early 1980's with my own money and was very proud of them. Before that pair of sneakers I bought my shoes at Kmart, you can image the quality and price. My first car was a 1969 Pontiac Venture with holes in the rear floor boards, no radio and it cost me $300. As a matter of fact my insurance cost me more per year than my car did.

I mention all this to show that I know what life is like without wealth, and I do not like it. No, money cannot purchase happiness, but it can purchase my values. I love the act of producing as it is what has allowed me to pull myself out of the situations I have already mentioned, and I have only just begun.

[Joss Delage 0]

Yes, but worse in what way, and destructive in what way? Would you have expected the federal government to obliterate the company, seize its assets, imprison its management -- or even worse than that?

As I explained earlier, I would have expected the federal government to destroy much (not all) value by forcing a breakup of the company (at least a 2 way one separating Windows and Office).