knast

There are four things I would like to say: 1. Machines and jobs. On this issue, let me quote from Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: Read the entire thing here. 2. Inflation under a gold standard. Inflation defined as an increase in the money supply would exist, but it would for obvious reasons be very small and limited. But inflation defined as an increase in the general price level, would (barely) exist. What would happen is that prices and wages would go down, year after year, as production increased year after year. As long as the prices goes down faster than the wages, there will be a gradual increase in the standard of living, because you can still buy more and more. (If the wages go down to the same degree as prices, then there will be no increase or decrease in the standard of living. But the normal state under capitalism with a gold standard is a gradual increase, precisely because the production of wealth increases more than the increase of gold money.) 3. The fundamental fallacy. The fundamental premise in the argument is that our need and desire for wealth is limited, so the only way we can want more is if we have enough money, why we need an increase in the money supply. But this premise is false, because in reality there is no limit on our needs and desires. There are many observations you make in your own life and in that of others that would make this point obvious: the only reason you do not spend more is because your wallet do not allow it. Notice that evertime you earn more money, you can always think of something to buy, something that you have postponed until you have the money. Notice also that every need implies the need for many other things. For instance, in order for you to satisfy your desire of, say, traveling long distances on your vacation, you also need the entire airplane industry - otherwise it would be too expensive to fly. And the airplane industry would not be possible without many other industries, which are needed to supply and entertain the airplane industry, like for instance a steel industry, a oil industry, etc. The same principle is true of any need and desire of yours. And there are many other observations you can make of your own. The implication of all of this is, however, that there is no limit on the wealth that must be produced. Thus there is also no limit on the work that must be done. As soon as we efficiently can serve one need, thanks in part to the introduction of labor-saving machines, the faster we can consider to satisfy our other needs and desires. This is how an entirely new industry can be created. On this issue, I recommend you to read George Reisman's article Production vs. Consumption. 4. The need of integration. Yes, your neighbor is right when he said that everything is connected. This entire post of yours is a great example of why one have to integrate your understanding of Objectivism with a proper understanding of many other subjects such as history, economics, and psychology. In this case, it is primarily economics that you need to study and integrate. Where to begin? What to read? I suggest that you start with Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Then read Economic Policy by Ludwig von Mises. Then read Markets don't fail! by Brian P Simpsons. Then read Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman.

It is not a circular argument, because it is not an argument. It is an explicit description of an axiom. (It is an axiom because our volition is available to direct perception, i.e., it is perceptually self-evident.) Where does the freedom come from? From the nature of man. A is A and man is man; it is in the nature of our consciousness to be volitional. Volition is an instance of the law of identity. Is it outside of cause and effect? No, it is an instance of the law of cause and effect: man's volitional mind is the cause of his actions; our choices are the cause. Here is a suggestion. First read everything by Ayn Rand and then read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. The answers to almost all of your questions is and will be in the litterature. Also, when you study the works of Ayn Rand and Peikoff, I strongly recommend you to use these questions to guide you to a proper understanding: http://www.oclubs.org/newsletter/2009/3/29...s-writings.html

Grames, I wonder: What made you buy this course? Did somebody recommend it? If so, what did he say? I am only wondering because I think the notes are extremely interesting and illuminating.

Very good and interesting notes. Thank you!

Again. This is the old logical fallacy of composition. It does not follow logically. It contradicts reality; it contradicts direct observation. This is pure rationalism a la Parmenides. Observe how he argue, why his argument goes wrong. Then you may realize why and how this argument, though it may seem very plausible, is completely false. The arguments here are not only false and rationalistic. They also amount to an assault on the hierarchy of human knowledge. Essentially they say this: "I demand that physics should be the standard of philosophy. And since you do not study physics via introspection therefore introspection is out". In fact, it is philosophy that is the standard for science because it is philosophy which proves and defines the epistemological principles that makes science possible. Therefore, in this context, virtually all of their attacks and arguments rely on stolen concepts. After all, the only way we can know anything about the workings of the mind, including that it is volitional, is via introspection. But since introspection is out, therefore even their talk of "volition" is, in this context, a stolen concept. At root is the fact that knowledge demand a method, but a method is unnecessary and impossible if we do not possess volition, because there is no use of recommending the use of logic, integration, observation, etc if we do not have any choice in the matter. I.e., if we do not possess any volition. Furthermore: How would a genius like Ayn Rand be able to formulate a true theory of concept formation, which is necessary for validating all knowledge and all science, without introspection? In the end there is only one solution to this dilemma: Look at reality! (Which in this case means: accept what you can observe introspectively.) Remember also that everything is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question to explain how atoms, ruled by physical laws, generate a volition consciousness. All philosophy can say is that volition consciousness exist and the laws of physics exist. Philosophically these observations can easily be integrated: man's volitional mind is the cause of his actions. There is no contradiction here; it is only when you demand that everything have to act like atoms or when you ignore direct observation, that you contradict yourself. For some advice on how to improve your psycho-epistemology, on how to think less rationalistic, I suggest to you that you listen to Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. It is available in CD and as a Internet course at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Amen, to that!

This is so very true. Good point! Also, thanks for posting your good notes of The Art of Thinking. They are a good complement to my own notes. Do you plan to post more notes from some other course?

But this is not a philosophical question. It is a scientific question. All one can say, philosophically, is that they obviously do not contradict another. My guess is, however, that our volitional mind is an emergent product of atoms, just like consciousness probably is an emergent product of atoms. Those who seem to think that there is a contradiction between volition and the laws of physics, commit the same fallacy of composition over and over again. In essence, they say that if our mind, which consist of or is an emergent product of atoms, which are ruled by physical laws, then it too must be determined by the very same physical laws, and therefore volition must be an illusion. But, as I have also said before, by the very same reasoning you could argue that you are not conscious at all, since the atoms that make consciousness possible, are not themselves conscious. But that is obviously not true. The fact that volition is one of the most discussed subjects does not prove anything. If you ever decide to study the history of philosophy, then you will notice that most philosophical discussions are the result of people not graping, evading, denying and contradicting the axioms and other self-evident truths. The fact that some people deny axioms, including free will, does not indicate that it is not a self-evident truth, i.e., an axiom. The "core" of free will is that we can make choices, and all that anyone needs to know that we have free will is that we can observe ourselves exercising it every single moment of every single day. "Prospectivist Objectivist" have really not brought up anything. He just ignores everything one says then make some irrelevant, incoherent comment that only goes to show that he either did not read what you wrote or did not understand it for some reason. He does not seem to understand what an axiom is, for instance, which is why he rejects those who do not attempt to "prove" the axioms, including the axiom of free will. He says that it is "bad philosophy" not to argue for "nontrivial" controversial issues, although you cannot and need not prove the axioms - regardless of how "nontrivial" and controversial you find them. All you can and need to do is to validate them, which is not the same as proving, and all you need to validate the axiom of volition is to observe it introspectively.

You obviously do not read very careful. I made the exact same point, argued for it, showed how and why your argument amounts to nothing but is a fallacy of composition. But you just rejected what I said, without any argument or explanation, or even mentioning of this point. Volition is self-evident via introspection. You can know that you possess volition, and that it is self-evident, just as you know that the grass is green, and that it is self-evident, by direct observation. This is all you need to know that volition is an axiom. I also made this point in my post but you never commented it. You just ignored it. An indication that volition is axiomatic is the fact that knowledge, truth and proof become stolen concepts if you deny it. I also made this point and, as usual, you ignored it. You have been answered on every single point. Not only by me, but also by others. But you just keep ignoring what has been said and demand that we throw something else in your direction. But since you have been answered, I see no reason for this.

The argument that knowledge becomes impossible if materialistic determinism is true was raised against pre-Socratic materialists. The argument that knowledge, truth and proof become stolen concepts if determinism is true was, however, first raised by Ayn Rand. Look, how do we reach knowledge? How do we, for instance, reach scientific knowledge? Well, for one thing, we have to apply the scientific method. But if we had no choice regarding our thinking, then what would be the use of recommending the scientific method? If we are determined to always be right, then a method would be unnecessary. If we are determined to always be wrong, then a method would be impossible. The fact is that we can reach truth and knowledge only by adhering to reality, and we can only adhere to reality if we follow a specific method (logic), and it's only possible and necessary to follow this suggested method (logic), if we are in control over our thinking. Thus, volition is a precondition of knowledge and truth. Thus, you cannot use scientific knowledge as an argument against the very preconditions of knowledge and truth, namely volition. The idea that free will must be an illusion because everything in reality is determined by physical laws is not true. In fact, it is a logical fallacy. To be specific it is a fallacy of composition. What you are saying is this: Because everything consists of atoms, and all the atoms are determined by physical laws, therefore everything, including human beings, must be determined by the laws of physics, and therefore free will cannot be possible. It must be an illusion. But notice that by this reasoning you can just as well argue that it must be an illusion that you can see. After all, atoms cannot see, yet your eyes consist of atoms. And consciousness must also be impossible, because, again, the atoms do not possess any consciousness. Therefore, you must be unconscious. Etc. Look at reality. You are conscious. You can observe that you possess volition just as you can observe that the grass is green. What else do you need? Are you going to argue that you do not see what you see? That you are not really conscious of your own mind and that you have control over your mind and your body? I.e., that you have free will? The laws of physics are real, and volition is real, but how does one combine them? That is not a philosophical question but a scientific question. The only thing we know for sure is that neither is an illusion and if we deny either, we end in contradictions.

How to "evangelize" Objectivism? I have four general suggestions: 1. Lend/give away copies of Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Let Rand do the talking. Especially if you're not an expert yourself and don't have a lot of experiences of discussing. Focus on rational honest people. Don't push Rand on to people who are not interested in ideas or of reading. If you do, you'll only come off as a preachy douche bag - and rightly so. If they don't like fiction, then offer them some of Rand's non-fiction if that suits their interests better. Say you're talking with a person who seems sympathetic to capitalism, well, then lend him a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and say that he may find the ideas in this book intriguing. Focus on the values and interests of the person you're addressing. Don't focus on polemics. 2. Write letters to the editor. Speak up. Let people know your opinion. Let them know that there is another way of looking at the current issues and problems. Again, don't push it. Only say what you want to say, if you're asked or a clear opportunity is given. Read "What Can One Do?" by Ayn Rand. It's published in Philosophy: Who Needs It. You can buy a copy here: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR07B 3. How to address people? Read "Applying Philosophy Without Preaching It" in The Art of Non-Fiction. You can buy a copy here: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR64B 4. Live it. Figure out what Objectivism says. If you're convinced that it's true and rational, then live it. It's a philosophy for life. It's suppose to help you become a happier person. Let it be known that Objectivism helps you in your pursuit of happiness. If you're happy and successful, then may inspire people to take a look at the ideas that helped you get to where you are in life. If you, however, are miserable then it will be much harder, if not impossible, to convince anybody that Objectivism is a philosophy that can help you live a better, richer, more enjoyable life. In order to live according to a philosophy you might need some help. If you need help to integrate Objectivism in your own life then I would suggest that you should listen to Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. You can buy it as an Internet course: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP31CS Or as a CD course: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP31M The Internet course is much cheaper, but then you can only listen to it for a year. If you can't afford it, then try to borrow it from someone who owns it. If you don't know anybody? Well, if you're currently at a campus, then you may be able to join or start a Objectivist Campus Club, and then you can borrow the lectures for free via ARI. Read more about this at www.aynrand.org Otherwise, I don't know what to do except the obvious: work and save money.

Read this piece by George Reisman: http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/01/fall...ntidote-to.html That should clarify it for you.

If you know almost nothing about economics, then I suggest that you start to study it on your own, for the sake of your own benefit. Where to begin? What to read? I recommend you to read the following books, in the following order: Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DH01B Economics for real people by Gene Callahan: http://mises.org/resources/2031 Markets don't fail! by Brian P Simpson: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DS81B Economic Policy by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/etexts/ecopol.pdf Capitalism: A Treatise on Econmics by George Reisman: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf Human Action by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/resources/3250 Now to your question: Yes, when the banks lend out money they don't have, they are creating money out of thin air. And banks do lend out money that they don't have all the time. This practice is called fractional reserve banking. How does this work? Let me quote economist Murray Rothbard: Now, I submit that whether or not one should regard this as counterfeiting or not, it is nevertheless bad for the economy and bad for capitalism. The practice of fractional reserve banking leads to inflation induced booms and busts. It leads to the destruction of wealth, because inflation essentially serves as a tax on savings. It also leads to such evils as the redistribution of wealth from the producers of wealth to the consumers of wealth. Etc. Given all the destructive effects on the economy it has, it should be obviuos why it's bad for capitalism. One reason people don't trust capitalism is because of all the booms and busts created by fractional reserve banking. Now, I must emphasize that fractional reserve banking is not the product of the free market. Throughout history it's been sanctioned, supported and backed by the government. Throughout history the government have, one way or another, bailed-out fractional reserve banks, whenever the bubbles they helped create inevitably bursted. This created a moral hazard in the banking business. The government protected them against bankruptcy, thus gave them a privilege that no other business have, and thus encouraged them to continue inflate the money supply via credit expansion. If the fractional reserve banks were left on their own and were not backed by the government, then the free market would probably end this irrational and destructive business model. People would realize that they could not afford it any longer.

The boom and bust cycle is essentially created by inflation via credit expansion at the support and ecouragement of the government. For details read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises and Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman. Or: http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/02/econ...es-capital.html http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/02/econ...capital_22.html

I recommend you to read the following books, in the following order: Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DH01B Economics for real people by Gene Callahan: http://mises.org/resources/2031 Markets don't fail! by Brian P Simpson: https://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DS81B Economic Policy by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/etexts/ecopol.pdf Capitalism: A Treatise on Econmics by George Reisman: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf Human Action by Ludwig von Mises: http://mises.org/resources/3250

In essence, that's correct. But you left out one very important detail: the practice of fractional reserve banking. It's the commercial banks that stand for most of the inflating of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking leads to inflation induced booms and busts. This is _destructive_ to the economy. It results in the _destruction of wealth_ and many other evils such as the _redistribution of wealth_ from the producers of wealth to the consumers of wealth. Why advocate fractional reserve banking when it's bad for capitalism? Since it leads to inflation induced booms and busts it gives capitalism a bad reputation. (For evidence read virtually any editorial page in the country or just talk to the random man on the street.) The practice is _not_ the result of the free market, but of _government_ encouragement. Throughout history the government have in one way or another bailed-out fractional reserve banks. During the 19th century, for instance, the government frequently allowed the banks to suspend specie payment, thereby avoiding bankruptcy. I am amazed that so many seems to be in favor of fractional reserve banking. Since I suspect this is due to a lack of knowledge about economics and history I would suggest these people to read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, pp. 434-448. For a more thorough elaboration read Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto. I don't think the practice have to be outlawed, but I do think that without all the government encouragement it would not exist on a truly free market, simply because it would, as the historical facts have clearly indicated, be shown to be a bad business model.

Why do you think we need more money merely because the population increases? If the supply of money is more or less constant, but the production of wealth is increasing year after year, because of an increase of producers, then all you will see is a constant increase of wealth. This will, ceteris paribus, result in lower prices, i.e., higher real wages, i.e., a higher standard of living. You need to study economics. Read George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. Read in particular chapter 19 entitled "Gold versus Inflation". It's available for free in PDF at www.capitalism.net

While I can't talk about Finland, I can as a swedish citizen tell you that it is NOT true that our labor laws are "flexible". That's UTTERLY FALSE. The truth is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. Besides, the high taxes does NOT work for us at all. We are poorer than the US. We have a much higher unemployment. It's very hard to get a job, much, much harder than in the US. We have relative low taxes on profits, savings and wealth, but very high taxes on consumption and income. Only recently the government have cut the income tax and it have helped our economy. Sweden is NOT a "socialist" country, it's a MIXED economy, just like the US or Canada or UK. Read more about Sweden here: http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2007/ind...hapter2_eng.pdf http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/2005...igh_is_tot.html http://mises.org/story/2259 http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/08/anti...-should-be.html

I am sorry Veritas, but this is pretty incoherent. I do not think that you understand the issue properly at all. I think that my answer should have made it more clear to you. But this explanation of your indicates that you either did not read it or you did not understand it. Please, for your own sake, re-read it. And re-read the relevant essays by Ayn Rand. Then do some more thinking. Here is just a suggestion: When you read and try to understand something, always try to concretize it, like I did in my answer to you. Your ability to concretize reflects your level of understanding.

"I see in Objectivism the value of not harming yourself, but if your own life is the standard of value what benifit is the life of someone else? Why not just kill them if they are bothering you? What is the objective value in valuing another persons life at all? How does Ayn Rand address this? I was reading a book by George Smith and he mention some of the psychological effects that you take on by harming others, but what if you do not feel the psychological effects?" Veritas, I suggest that you try to understand the ideas of Miss Rand by reading her books and novels. Start with the Anthem, then The Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged. Then again, I don't know if that would help you since your problem seems to stem from your faulty methodology. You seem to try to deduce the value of another person from the fact that man's life is the standard of value. I do not think that is possible. And given your inability to draw the proper conclusion, I know that it can't be the proper method. Instead you should start with the facts, especially the facts of your own life, and induce. Do you have any friends? Do you not value them? Don't you get some pleasure from their existence? Don't you enjoy their company? Do you have some love partner? Have you ever been in love? If so, then you have in essence already answered your own question. Other people are, for a variety of different reasons, of a selfish rational value to you, precisely because they make your life better, richer, more enoyable, etc. Of course, only good, rational, honest people can be of a true, objective value to you, because they are the only kind of people whose existence can make your life better and more enjoyable. That's why you want John Galt or Thomas Jefferson as your neighbor, not Saddam Hussein or George W Bush. Incidentally, that's why it's so important to practice the virtue of justice. How do you benefit by killing a John Galt or a Eddie Willers or a Thomas Edison or a Thomas Jefferson or any of your friends or your love partner? The answer should be obvious. (Yes, it would be in your rational self-interest to imprison or, if necessary, kill bad people in self-defense.) In fact, the only way you can benefit from the existence of good people, is if you let them enjoy their life in freedom, i.e., recognize and respect their individual rights. An enslaved John Galt or Thomas Jefferson, in Cuba or North Korea or Iran, you will never notice. But you will notice what a free Steve Jobs or Bill Gates can do to improve your life. That's why life in the USA is great and life is rotten in places like Cuba or North Korea or Iran.

(1) "If you've listened to more than one, which did you find most helpful in better understanding Objectivism? Why?" Objectivism Through Induction. Why? Because it taught me how to induce the principles of Objectivism and therefore also how to properly understand and prove the philosophy. In addition, since I have now based my understanding on Objectivism on my own observations, I have a new conviction of its truth, a conviction I do not think that you can establish without induction. I learned a thing or two about Objectivism which I did not know before. It convinced me of the power of induction which, in turn, have encouraged me to actively induce as much as possible. (4) "If you've listened to one or more, did you just listen, or did you study it? Meaning did you take detailed notes, do the homework, relisten to segments you found confusing, etc." I studied them thoroughly. I made a lot of notes. I have me about 33 pages of very detailed notes on Objectivism Through Induction. I have also about 28 pages of very detailed notes on The Art of Thinking. (Unfortunately I only have them in Swedish.) I have done all the home work. And I have relistened several lectures, several times. And I am currently, actively, working on automatizing everything I have learned from the latter lecture. I am also writing down a plan for how I will go about to induce the essentials of Objectivism on my own. (5) "How important do you think these courses are to fully understanding Objectivism?" I think they are very important. I think that OTI is extremely valuable if you truly want to understand Objectivism and learn how to validate it properly. I have learned more from these lectures than I have done for several years on my own. I suspect that UO is very valuable for the exact same reason. I honestly do not think that you are seriously interested in Objectivism if you do not want to listen to the major lectures of Dr Leonard Peikoff. They will not only help you understand Objectivism much better, they will also help you integrate it to your own life, your own thinking and thereby it will help you become a better person and thinker. I intend to listen to all of them, even some of the lectures that you have not mentioned, as soon as I can afford to do it. Yes, they are costly but in my opinion they are worth it. You have to think of it as an investment for life. In a sense you will learn more from these lectures than you ever will at a college. Would it be good if they were less expensive? Yes. Would it have been better if they were available in text format? Maybe. I, however, do not mind the audio format at all. In fact, I actually prefer it because I love listening to Dr Leonard Peikoff lecturing. He is, in my opinion, without a doubt one of the best lecturers ever. My suggestion to those who have a hard time listening to lectures, is that the first time you listen to them, you should only concentrate on understanding. Let it sink in until the next time you listen on them. Then the next time you listen on them, you take notes. Since you now know, roughly, what he is going to say, it should be easy to take down good and detailed notes.

With this, I do not agree. I think that Ghate did a great job and that his answers were spot on. To the extent Ghate let Huemer "off the hook", I think he did the right thing by ignoring, in my opinion, the minor points and instead focused on the essential points by answering them in terms of essentials. I think he did a great job of presenting and arguing for the Objectivist position. If Ghate instead would have tried to untangle some of the 500 bizarre things Huemer said, then he would be wasting his time. It's always more important and efficient to argue for your own point of view, than to answer every single objection or question possible. At least under these circumstances. Ghate also made it perfectly clear to the rational and honest people in the audience, that he could for the most part only indicate the argument, why people who want to know more should read the works of Ayn Rand. Rational and honest people know that it's impossible to present the complete proof in a debate like this and therefore do not demand it. Most people will settle for an indication. I do not think that most people, who paid attention, got the impression that Ghate or Objectivism were in favor of murdering innocent people. I think that most people understood that Huemer's main point was he could not see why it would not be in your rational self-interest to murder people if you somehow could gain something by doing so. That was perhaps the only point from Huemer that had a degree of plausibility, since the answer is, as some people already have pointed out, not self-evident. Now, personally I do not think that this point is very hard to grasp or prove. And if you internalize the right thinking methods, it becomes even easier to grasp it in a "truck-like" fashion. Having said that, I do not want to suggest that it is an easy task to explain it or even indicate the argument in a debate such as this one. Yet Ghate managed to indicate the answer in terms of essentials. And he did it very good, given the circumstances.

With this, I concur emphatically.

I agree with what you are saying. I just want to add that Amanda Teresi is hot. I know. It is off-topic, but I feel much better now that I have said it. ;-)

When Rand says that a monopoly is impossible under capitalism, she's refering to government sponsored/enforced monopolies, not monopolies created by the free market. The goal of a _rational_ businessman is to produce as much as possible, to make as much money as possible, by making as good products as possible, as efficiently as possible. Not to dominate others. Not to become "number one" or a monopoly. If they become "number one" or a monopoly _as a result of their productive ability_, then that's obviously a good thing for him (and incidentally everybody else who deals with him). And his success would, all other things equal, make him happy. But it's _not_ the rational businessman's main concern - and his happiness does not depend on it. The rational businessman is not concerned with _destroying_ other businesses. He's mainly concerned with _expanding and improving his own business_, i.e., with _creation and innovation_ because of the pure joy that brings him. If other businesses can't compete with him, as a result, then so be it. But it's _not_ his main concern. The rational businessman has essentially the same approach to these things as the arch-individualist Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead. The rational businessman is, in other words, _not_ a Gail Wynand. If you are not familiar with Howard Roark, Gail Wynand or Miss Rand's novel The Fountainhead, then I strongly suggest that you read it. You will not regret it! Besides there is _no_ reason to assume that the happiness of a businessman - or any man for that matter - rests only on being a monopolist or even number one. And you do not need to read The Fountainhead to figure that out. Just look around you. Most businessmen are, after all, not "number one" or even "number two" in their industry. Yet they seem perfectly capable of leading happy lives. Likewise, some businessmen are "number one", and some of them are miserable. Hope my answer were of some value to you.