Can an Objectivist become a billionaire?

[RayK 0]

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).

But, what good comes from compromising with evil? None!

If you compromise, then your business stays alive only because the evil-doer allows it. He can also take your life or wealth at any time. Unless, you stand up for your rights, including the right to do business as you see fit.

By your standard though, it seems business leaders should be pragmatic and do whatever it takes to keep their company alive, even if that means compromising everything to evil-doers.

At what point are you willing to stand up for your right to your life and all else that follows from that right? The Founding Fathers of America staked their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." I think a rational businessman would and should be willing to do the same, I am.

No, I do not run a business as large nor as profitable as Microsoft and other large companies. But, on my death bed I will know that I always strove to live my life according to my ethics, even if I never make it to a billionaire, because I did not compromise with evil.

[Joss Delage 0]

There are two consequences to compromising or not compromising with evil (as we here mean it):

1) It impacts how one thinks of oneself - self respect. However, this is only true to the extent that one is aware of the morality involved - if not an Objectivist then at least someone with a solid understanding of the moral bases for Capitalism.

Bill Gates isn't in this situation, so he would have had no incremental self-respect by adopting a defiant attitude vis-a-vis the DOJ. In fact, I suspect that Gates is deeply conflicted about having had to fight the DOJ. His private actions show that he is intellectually a collectivist - the most blatant example was the present he offered his father for his birthday this year.

2) On average, and over the long term, it increases your chances of success. However, I don't think that this is by all means always the case. In this instance, Microsoft got a reprieve and a chance to wait out the end of the Clinton administration. Of course, long-ranging consequences could still happen, but for now I think they actually came up better than they would have otherwise. Of course, we're dealing with estimated probabilities of a bad outcome then vs. a bad outcome later, and I don't have a way to prove that.

[Rose Lake 0]

But it would have been better for Gates's millions go up in smoke rather than benefiting, say, a bunch of Muslims in Africa, and public servants in the U.S. Logically, I think it is more than probable that most of these beneficiaries will not only offer no value in return for the value they have received or will receive from Gates, but will generate disvalues; i.e. they will use his money to educate and train themselves to work in (and therefore prop up and expand) 1) the most immoral sectors of the U.S. government, and 2) tyrannical foreign nations. Insofar as the beneficiaries of Gates’s wealth share and promote the altruist morality, they will aid in the destruction of freedom – the freedom needed by productive individuals to live.

The message Gates has been broadcasting by his recent giveaways is loud and clear, i.e. it is not morally justifiable for a man to make money. And if he makes money anyway, he must publicly acknowledge his ‘sin,’ and work to redeem himself, by voluntarily feeding the altruistic parasites who have determined his morality for him.

So I think that in regard to Gates's own morality, his recent actions are far worse than any past choice in regard to trying to fight government bureaucrats who were attempting to destroy his company. Now he is actively aiding evil, and, in this sense, is becoming an enemy himself.

If, when attacked, a rational man does not choose to fight the force-wielding parasites who make it their "business" to steal the values he has created; the moral alternative is not what Gates is doing now, i.e. voluntarily paying to inflate the ranks of those who have, and will continue to spend their lives destroying rational productive men. Gates's current attempt to expiate his ‘sin’ of making a lot of money is extensively destructive, and intensely repugnant.

The only moral alternatives I can think of, for a man like Gates, would have been to fight, and/or to retire and make selfish use of whatever remained of his fortune.

[Joss Delage 0]

Rose - if Gates had chosen to fight defiantly, it is likely that his company would have been destroyed. It is in my mind certain that the fines paid would have been much, much heftier. I.e., statists and altruists would have benefited even more.

As a side note, I disagree that complying under threat of violence is morally equivalent to actually aiding the enemy. In this case, the DOJ basically put a (metaphorical) gun to Gates' head and forced him to pay, under threat of being shot and robbed anyway.

The only possible victory in such a situation is one of preserved self-respect even in the face of material defeat - but as I mentionned earlier for this to be true one has to have the right philosophical bases.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In fact, I suspect that Gates is deeply conflicted about having had to fight the DOJ. His private actions show that he is intellectually a collectivist - the most blatant example was the present he offered his father for his birthday this year.

I must have missed that bit of news. What was the birthday present?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

As a side note, I disagree that complying under threat of violence is morally equivalent to actually aiding the enemy. In this case, the DOJ basically put a (metaphorical) gun to Gates' head and forced him to pay, under threat of being shot and robbed anyway.

That important point is worthy of more than just a sidenote. I think we should always keep in mind that governmental initiation of force is the main culprit here. That fact does not diminish the rather pathetic lack of principled understanding on the part of Gates, but it does lend some perspective to the situation.

[Rose Lake 0]

Rose - if Gates had chosen to fight defiantly, it is likely that his company would have been destroyed. It is in my mind certain that the fines paid would have been much, much heftier. I.e., statists and altruists would have benefited even more.

More than what? I think that altruists benefit far more now, morally, from the moral sanction and material aid that Gates gives them voluntarily -- than they ever could have done from destroying his company, dividing up the loot, and having to rationalize that without having his moral sanction. I can't help seeing his current giveaways as a payment to the same morality that wanted to destroy him -- a payment for not being totally destroyed -- for being allowed to exist, so long as he will demonstrate his loyalty to the altruist morality, which he's doing now in spades.

As a side note, I disagree that complying under threat of violence is morally equivalent to actually aiding the enemy. In this case, the DOJ basically put a (metaphorical) gun to Gates' head and forced him to pay, under threat of being shot and robbed anyway.

I want to be clear that I never intended to be understood as saying that complying under threat of violence is morally equivalent to aiding the enemy. If I have been interpreted to mean such a thing, I would suggest a careful reading of my post. I was referring to Gates's recent voluntary giveaways as aiding enemies (or former enemies), and don't understand how this fact could be missed. I also never said that Gates should necessarily have fought the bureaucrats. He was in an impossible situation there, and the paragraph below is true, though I don't think that the right philosophy necessarily needs to be explicitly held for a man to defend himself morally.

The only possible victory in such a situation is one of preserved self-respect even in the face of material defeat - but as I mentionned earlier for this to be true one has to have the right philosophical bases.

[Ed from OC 0]

Rose - if Gates had chosen to fight defiantly, it is likely that his company would have been destroyed. It is in my mind certain that the fines paid would have been much, much heftier. I.e., statists and altruists would have benefited even more.

In light of this, I'm curious about your take on Rearden's courtroom stand. I see them as essentially the same (though Gates doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Rearden). Should Rearden have argued as he did? If not, what should he have done?

As a side note, I disagree that complying under threat of violence is morally equivalent to actually aiding the enemy. In this case, the DOJ basically put a (metaphorical) gun to Gates' head and forced him to pay, under threat of being shot and robbed anyway.

This is an essential point in evaluating the moral course of action. By refusing to sanction his attackers (through the refusal to pretend a defense was possible), Rearden removed the facade that anything less than this was taking place. In my mind, that is precisely what needs to be done to rip apart antitrust law. And I expect to see, in such a case, enough public support for the businessman that the cowardly bureaucrats will scurry away out of fear.

[Joss Delage 0]

I must have missed that bit of news. What was the birthday present?

You're going to love that Stephen:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...3_gates01m.html

It's the sort of gift that Bill Gates Sr. wanted from his son.

Nothing gaudy or flashy, nothing stylish or sleek. In fact, nothing for himself at all. Instead, something to inspire public service in others, something to give back. Something he has insisted on long before his son became the world's richest man.

So when Bill Gates Sr. turned 80 Wednesday, his son surprised him with this: an 80-year scholarship program for the University of Washington School of Law in the elder Gates' name

...

The deal: Five students get a full-ride scholarship each year. In exchange, they commit to working seven years in public service after graduation — for instance, for a legal aid or advocacy agency, a nonprofit, as a public defender or prosecutor.

My emphasis...

[Joss Delage 0]

In light of this, I'm curious about your take on Rearden's courtroom stand. I see them as essentially the same (though Gates doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Rearden). Should Rearden have argued as he did? If not, what should he have done?

Rearden had the right philosophical basis to know that even if he were beaten materially he would have the satisfaction of having taken the virtuous path. Gates doesn't.

By refusing to sanction his attackers (through the refusal to pretend a defense was possible), Rearden removed the facade that anything less than this was taking place. In my mind, that is precisely what needs to be done to rip apart antitrust law. And I expect to see, in such a case, enough public support for the businessman that the cowardly bureaucrats will scurry away out of fear.

Do you really expect this? What in the prevalent philosophy in the US these days do you use as the rational basis for such an expectation, or even a hope? There is none. There's a good reason why politicians like to go after "big business" - because that's what the voters want to hear.

[Ed from OC 0]

Do you really expect this? What in the prevalent philosophy in the US these days do you use as the rational basis for such an expectation, or even a hope?

I haven't given up on the world, for one thing. Secondly, look at the public response to when Objectivists reach out to the public. When they hear Ayn Rand's ideas for the first time, certain people respond enthusiastically. I was one of them, when I first read TF.

Now suppose someone like Bill Gates has the TV cameras of the world on him, watching everything, capturing every word. What if he were an Objectivist, with the eloquence to duplicate Rearden's courtroom speech? Just imagine the uproar! Antitrust would be exposed as a blatant, arbitrary license for bureaucrats to crucify businessmen who don't have the right political pull. The last thing these bureaucrats expect is an Objectivist defense; they are used to getting their whims catered to out of fear of their power, and part of that is not daring the challenge the premise that these guys have the moral right to harass and persecute businessmen.

Yet point out to the public, clearly, logically, and empirically, the exact nature of what's going on and the rats will scurry. They have no defense, other than intimidating their victims. Period. If they rely on altruism for their case, then attack that, too.

One thing that bothers me about the stance that we can take the moral stand but end up losing our businesses is that it admits that there's a wedge between the moral and the practical. Certainly, when under the threat of force, we can stand to lose signficant values. But modern politics, though in bad shape, is not too far gone that all hope is lost. So long as groups like ARI can publish OP-EDs and books and train future professors, the world is not lost.

All these things tell me we can still turn the ship before we hit the iceberg.

[Peter Brown 0]

I am awaiting to applaud an Objectivist who becomes a billionaire, although I am still not sure I will see it. I also would not mind and I am striving to be one myself!

I am eighteen.

I am confident that, unless I get killed, that in todays money (drop the CPI crap), I will be a billionaire.

I have approached living on Earth in a moral way, and it was practical.

A year ago I was binge drinking every weekend, going to school after all nighters, smoking a pack a day.

Today I don't drink, I don't smoke, I left my Catholic school and persued Technical Analysis/Financial Markets ever since.

Imagine me in five years, if in one, I totally gave up smoking and turned into the complete opposite of the false alternative, that right wing ideologue I once was, my parents, school and state study authority parylized me, I couldn't think, I had to memorize, now I am auditing myself, using epistemology to make thinking an imperative, something I never used to do was use real thought processes.

The reason I'm saying all this out loud to a forum is that since I comprehended how markets work, ever since it has powers me to do good, to learn more, to apply.

I have swing traded NYSE:LFC at different points over the last year, mainly long over the last 9 months, watch the stock rarely.

This is a Chinese life insurance company, consider the context, if I had my money on it, I'm up 71%.

If I wasn't 18, but 20, having much more experience trading, I could be up way more, if I had my money on it, I would have used that, and other profits, mainly from FX & futures to allocate capital in order to influence the building of a real Laissez Faire Capitalist nation or LFC (not the stock symbol) in the Republic of Chile.

When my funds worth billions, and I'm worth only millions, I will use the fund to hire people with similar minds, with the eventual goal to dish out large sized but extremely effective economic boycotts.

I think China is an Evil Nation, however, had my money been in that Chinese companies stock, I would have been the winner of that trade, allocating most of the profits, although in alot of places, to the eventual goal of the advancement of Objectivism and Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Back to my Technical Analysis books.

I think the Financial Markets, if you know what you're doing, if you have the right psychology, in which Objectivism helps greatly; is the best way to make a billion.

Trading is so awesome, you get to make what the dumb people lose.

The nature of the markets as distorted as they are by the state dictate that you must enjoy short term trades, you must play their game, and allocate your capital to undermine it -- the financial markets are the only way Objectivists can really proliferate massive amounts of wealth in such a way that advocates of Ayn Rand's Philosophy become the 540 or so billionaires, with no room for people like Oprah

Just something to think about.

[Joss Delage 0]

Ed - all I can say is that you must be living in a different United States than I do. I believe that had Gates been an Objectivist, and had tempted to explain his position, he would have been crucified by the press, the politicians of both shades of Statism, and most of the public. Yes, a few people who have understood and agreed, but they would have been a tiny minority. It would have been a great first step to educate the public but that's it.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Ed - all I can say is that you must be living in a different United States than I do.

I often get a similar feeling when reading your posts, especially assessments of current events with disconnects between principles and practicality.

I believe that had Gates been an Objectivist, and had tempted to explain his position, he would have been crucified by the press, the politicians of both shades of Statism, and most of the public. Yes, a few people who have understood and agreed, but they would have been a tiny minority. It would have been a great first step to educate the public but that's it.

The "great first step" was taken five decades ago, when Ayn Rand published Atlas Shrugged and then devoted her effort to explicate the philosophy of Objectivism. Even back then Objectivists made a difference, like when an Objectivist lawyer told the New York Supreme Court that the Court's decision was wrong. Such a direct act was unknown to a high-level courtroom at that time. Since that time Objectivists have made meaningful inroads into academia, which, of course, is the necessary precondition to affect a wide and substantial cultural change. Now, when an Objectivist lawyer like Dana Berliner speaks on eminent domain, her words are heard not only in the courts, but they also redound throughout the world in print, and in radio and television media alike.

I see the concern for being "crucified by the press" and other sundry societal segments as representing overt pessimisim coupled with a defeatest attitude. While it is likely true that we cannot expect a major cultural shift until Objectivist intellectuals greatly expand their influence in academia and thereby transmit Objectivist ideas to the public through the popular media, every step along the way, be it an ARI Op-Ed in a newspaper or an Objectivist intellectual appearing on a TV news show, is a step in the right direction. Had a man with the public status of a Bill Gates taken a principled stand against the government and some of his corrupt competitors, the cause of freedom and a more rational world would have been justly served.

I for one live in and enjoy a world very similar to that in which Ed from OC lives.