Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How Does One Act Rationally In An Irrational Society?

Rate this topic


Clawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a question about the chapter 'How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?' in 'The virtue of selfishness'.

I agree with Ayn Rand that one has to speak out against the irrationality. But she does not specifically adress the question on how to act in such a society (does she?).

Let's assume the field your business is working in recently gets massive government subsidies. Should you self-sacrifice yourself and refuse the money (and go out of business) or should you just speak out against it but take part in the looting?

Or let's assume there is a law that the government is unable (or unwilling) to enforce (which is, concering property rights, basicly the same as the example from above). Should you remain lawful while everyone else makes profit from it (and driving you out of business)?

Thanks for any thoughts :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your business can't function without the forced sacrifices of government tax payers, what does that say about your business and how you run it?

If your competitors are receiving subsidies while you arent, then not much.

To the OP: I think theres a strong case for arguing this would fall under the same principle as receiving state-funded education; namely its moral iff the actions of the state have artificially restricted your options, and you denounce it while taking it. Someone who actively sought handouts in order to gain an advantage over their competitors would be acting immorally, but I dont think you can blame someone for accepting handouts if he worked in an industry where this was the norm - not doing so would give his competitors an unfair advantage, and theres no reason why he should martyr himself.

Thats not to say that he necessarily should take handouts - it would really be a matter of personal choice. Some people might have such a strong aversion to stolen money that they wouldnt be happy accepting it even in circumstances where doing so would be justifiable, and theres nothing wrong with that either.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should you self-sacrifice yourself and refuse the money (and go out of business) or should you just speak out against it but take part in the looting?
Self-sacrifice is always wrong; but what you're saying suggests that it wouldn't be a sacrifice. I'm referring the the implication that taking money from the government is so profoundly wrong that it causes unresolvable psychological torment for you, which can only be eliminated by refusing to accept any government money. In that case you are exchanging a psychological value and a monetary one which in your hierarchy of values may be a "profit", not a sacrifice. See "The Question of Scholarships" if you can. Whatever you do, you should oppose taxation. You are not responsible for the fact that the government taxes us. If you can manage without the subsidy, do so; don't commit suicide because you don't live in a perfect society.
Or let's assume there is a law that the government is unable (or unwilling) to enforce (which is, concering property rights, basicly the same as the example from above). Should you remain lawful while everyone else makes profit from it (and driving you out of business)?
If the law is actually a proper law, for example ones regarding fraud or theft, they you should remain lawful even though everyone else in your profession is a crook. I have a very hard time imagining the scenario you're proposing in a rational society -- the government refuses to enforce laws against credit-card fraud and merchants routinely harvest millions of dollars from customers who use credit cards by entering bogus charges -- and the customer has no legal recourse. If that were to happen, the society you are living in would be way past the level of mild irrationality that we live in. That would be Soviet-style irrationality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very hard time imagining the scenario you're proposing in a rational society -- the government refuses to enforce laws against credit-card fraud and merchants routinely harvest millions of dollars from customers who use credit cards by entering bogus charges -- and the customer has no legal recourse. If that were to happen, the society you are living in would be way past the level of mild irrationality that we live in. That would be Soviet-style irrationality.

Not cracking down on copyright infringement could be an example; perhaps someone running a specialised small business would want to use some (expensive) industry-standard software which his equally sized competitors were pirating.

There are probably lots of other examples. We dont have to talk about 'big crimes' like allowing credit card fraud here; consider situations where the government turns a blind-eye to companies flouting smaller scale laws(eg hygene regulation, etc)

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not cracking down on copyright infringement could be an example; perhaps someone running a specialised small business would want to use some (expensive) industry-standard software which his equally sized competitors were pirating.
Okay, that's another type of example. My credit-card fraud example wasn't meant to be the only example imaginable, and again, I could only imagine such a situation existing in a Soviet-style or Maoist-style society.
consider situations where the government turns a blind-eye to companies flouting smaller scale laws(eg hygene regulation, etc)
This, however, deserves special attention: the underlying premise is that we're talking about proper laws. Hygene regulations, on the other hand, should generally be ignored because they are both dysfunctional and not the proper function of law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law is actually a proper law, for example ones regarding fraud or theft, they you should remain lawful even though everyone else in your profession is a crook. I have a very hard time imagining the scenario you're proposing in a rational society -- the government refuses to enforce laws against credit-card fraud and merchants routinely harvest millions of dollars from customers who use credit cards by entering bogus charges -- and the customer has no legal recourse. If that were to happen, the society you are living in would be way past the level of mild irrationality that we live in. That would be Soviet-style irrationality.

Well, the government is 'unwilling' to enforce a 'law'/protect a right if the law is not part of the laws of the country/if the right is not part of the constitution, for example the right to own property is abused by taxation, the government is 'unwilling' to (fully) protect your property.

An example where the government was already mentioned (copyright).

Self-sacrifice is always wrong; but what you're saying suggests that it wouldn't be a sacrifice. I'm referring the the implication that taking money from the government is so profoundly wrong that it causes unresolvable psychological torment for you, which can only be eliminated by refusing to accept any government money. In that case you are exchanging a psychological value and a monetary one which in your hierarchy of values may be a "profit", not a sacrifice. See "The Question of Scholarships" if you can.

Ok, true, money is not everything and just one values of many. I think it boils down to the question how much you value your liberty compared with your right for property. Speaking out against it helps, acting on it makes your argument more convincing.

I've re-read the article "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society". Do I understand it correctly that in the paragraph at the end she basicly says that when the society turns to irrationality one has not only to speak out against it but also to act against it, even at the cost of self-sacrifice (I don't necessarily mean giving up your life but investing your time and money into things where your reward is only minimal and long-term, like trying to improve society) because if you do not act against it, set no example for others, the society will get worse and worse and taken over by thugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not self-sacrifice. I could very well imagine that living in an irrational society would be such a non-value to someone, that they would spend their whole life trying to make it better. Would you, for example, call Ragnar in AS self-sacrificial, because he got little to no values from what he did? I think he literally says somewhere that he is investing in his own future.

I do not see how you can say that that is sacrifice, that would mean that the person in question would actually rather live in the irrational society, but he fights for a more rational one out of duty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not self-sacrifice. I could very well imagine that living in an irrational society would be such a non-value to someone, that they would spend their whole life trying to make it better. Would you, for example, call Ragnar in AS self-sacrificial, because he got little to no values from what he did? I think he literally says somewhere that he is investing in his own future.

I do not see how you can say that that is sacrifice, that would mean that the person in question would actually rather live in the irrational society, but he fights for a more rational one out of duty...

Well, it's the usual free-rider problem, you invest much but get very little (in terms of direct personal gain) of your efforts, while society as a whole profits. But of course, if a free society is one of your important values then you do get a lot in return.

From the perspective of a collectivist government/people: They will act and decide to form the state in a way so that you always achieve much less from any personal effort you have invested (for example through majority rule).

Only if some people step outside of their own world and value freedom of the whole society more than personal gain things will change.

Remembers me of Mark Twain:

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it cost nothing to be a patriot." (change patriot into objectivist B) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an irrational society, all that can be done is to accept it, for the time being. It does not do much good to speak out and destroy yourself, at least not today. We do have the excellent examples of Howard Roark and Hank Rearden, yet the circumstances are a bit different now. I use this quote to explain this: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." I am still young, and I must obey the nature of the world and learn all about this irrational society. When I am wise and more philisophically in tune, then it is time to change it. All an objectivist has to do is keep thinking rationally, and thus the towers of irrationality will fall, with a bit of hard work. One day will come when a decision must be reached: will the world accept socialist or capitalist views? I, for one, will be on the capitalist side. Each person who choses this thinks rationally, thus undermining irrationality. Each person who choses this will be there with me, and we will be the men who change the world. For today, though, we must continue to wait, because as the socialists delve further and further into altruism, they will begin to turn back. Socialism is not, and cannot ever be, human nature. The rational mind knows this, and does not worry about his own actions ever, knowing them to be right. Neither does he give thought to those decrepit collectives. One day, they will find that they were wrong. I won't say "I told you so." I will say "Welcome back."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for example the right to own property is abused by taxation, the government is 'unwilling' to (fully) protect your property.
But now you're taking liberties with how you originally asked the question, about law. Then you get a different answer. Should you pay taxes? I dunno -- if you want to live your life for my sake and possibly yours as well, I urge you to become a highly successful multi-billion dollar business, and then very publically refuse to pay taxes (break the law). I am completely certain that the government will jail you and take your property, and do so in the sneakiest way possible. So the causal relation between force and the destruction of civilization may be dramatically concretized, though at the expense of your life. The point that you would be making would be a Rearden-class point, so go for it. However, to be honest, I prefer the comfortable existence of living relatively freely in society, rather than basically ending my life in a political protest. I also prefer not to discover just at what level of rights-violation I would snap, so I don't live in North Korea or Red China, or even Canada.
Do I understand it correctly that in the paragraph at the end she basicly says that when the society turns to irrationality one has not only to speak out against it but also to act against it, even at the cost of self-sacrifice (I don't necessarily mean giving up your life but investing your time and money into things where your reward is only minimal and long-term, like trying to improve society) because if you do not act against it, set no example for others, the society will get worse and worse and taken over by thugs?
While I don't dispute that acting against irrationality is good, and that Rand would say that acting against irrationality is good, my understanding of the focus of this chapter is simply that rendering moral judgment is, itself, the rational thing to do, and the (second to last) paragraph focuses on the fact that the moral climate which prevails will be determined by whether men embrace or ignore questions of moral responsibility. It is a separate question whether you should pay taxes, protest when protest is outlawed; and again remember that sacrifice means give up value, not gaining value. In particular, having lived my life in the free world, I cannot comprehend the horror of being forced to live by the "Whatever is demanded for physical survival" morality which was all that was allowed in the Soviet era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's the usual free-rider problem, you invest much but get very little (in terms of direct personal gain) of your efforts, while society as a whole profits. But of course, if a free society is one of your important values then you do get a lot in return.

From the perspective of a collectivist government/people: They will act and decide to form the state in a way so that you always achieve much less from any personal effort you have invested (for example through majority rule).

Only if some people step outside of their own world and value freedom of the whole society more than personal gain things will change.

Remembers me of Mark Twain:

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, For then it cost nothing to be a patriot." (change patriot into objectivist :) )

But it is personal gain for the person doing it. Would you call a soldier defending his country from foreign enemies also self-sacrificial? He gets very little "personal gain" out if it as you say it, also. But it is in his self-interest to do what he does, even if it might not pay an exorbitant amount and even though he risks his life in the process. It shows just how much someone values freedom. And besides, a value is "something which you act to gain and/or keep"; defending your values is also very valuable in this way, because you can prevent someone else from taking it, and thereby prevent loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your business can't function without the forced sacrifices of government tax payers, what does that say about your business and how you run it?

You could be the greatest widget businessman on the planet and still fail miserably due to massive widget subsidies you refuse to accept. There are some businesses that cannot exist in a free society and if you reword your reply to target those business types alone it would be correct. An example that would address both this distinction and the OP's original question would be the small farm in the modern US. While I may oversimplify a few situations, it's a great example because of heavy government subsidies in a business where hard work once paid off.

Farmer A didn't learn chemistry or soils in college but he did learn business law and how to apply for the most subsidies. He gets a low interest loan (from guess who?) and buys land that won't produce. Maybe he buys it knowing a future protected beetle lives on that land and he'll receive a fat check to not disturb the habitat. He has no intention of creating anything and sits back collecting his government welfare check. His entire business model would have no place in a capitalist society and his education would help him land a fast food job. This person is living immorally in an immoral society.

Farmer B is quite different. He learned how to make a legit living farming both through formal education and work experience before going out on his own. Maybe he has the family farm passed down to him and makes a living for several years. Suddenly, his costs are skyrocketing as the government raises property taxes to pay for a new school his children will never use. Of course it won't be a simple functional design, but elaborate and costly to show that their community cares about the children. Fuel costs are going up due to unreasonable new environmental laws and his crops are not worth what they once were due to shifts in tariffs. Farmer B is offered a check from the government along with 10,000 other farmers who all will be accepting. There will be no reduction in produced goods so prices won't adjust. In this case, he's certainly not immoral in taking the check. He shouldn't let himself be destroyed just so Farmer A can take his spot.

What if Farmer B is given an option on how big that government check should be? He could take the smaller amount and with his superior ability and work ethic his family's physical existence would be assured for the time being. Or he could take the bigger check and buy a hot tub. While a similar situation has been debated before on this forum with differing opinion, I contend he should enjoy his hot tub. More than that, he should enjoy his new jet ski if the government offers more.

Justice and fairness has been destroyed and not by him. Farmer B should be protesting with one hand and accepting tax money in the other. Trying to calculate what is stolen and accepting only that amount back is impossible. Even if possible, it's not his obligation. If anything sucking more money out of the system will show how impractical, unstable, and unfair it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a separate question whether you should pay taxes, protest when protest is outlawed; and again remember that sacrifice means give up value, not gaining value.
Ok, I agree, it's not sacrifice but a trade-off between two values, short-term economic success versus long-term economic success of the system. You profit from a free system

I would come to the conclusion that a mixed-system cannot 'heal' itself, instead those who do the looting often also lobby for even more taxes and more regulation. Individual effort to improve the system is not rewarded.

But in the end that's the reason why we currently live in a mixed-system and not in a free society, any small hole in the constitution will be widened and widened until it destroys the country.

I agree with your approach of how to *live* in an irrational society but I tend to believe that to *overcome* an irrational society one has to sacrifice oneself. I use the term 'sacrifice' because I can't really see any 'value' you get by it (except you value the interaction with people that much), as any real change will certainly not happen in your lifetime... In the end you are fighting not for an individual value but for a collective value (the constitution).

In particular, having lived my life in the free world, I cannot comprehend the horror of being forced to live by the "Whatever is demanded for physical survival" morality which was all that was allowed in the Soviet era.

Well, there wasn't even that premise as the Soviet economy couldn't even nourish its people without foreign loans and allowing limited free enterprise later...

But it is personal gain for the person doing it. Would you call a soldier defending his country from foreign enemies also self-sacrificial? He gets very little "personal gain" out if it as you say it, also. But it is in his self-interest to do what he does, even if it might not pay an exorbitant amount and even though he risks his life in the process. It shows just how much someone values freedom. And besides, a value is "something which you act to gain and/or keep"; defending your values is also very valuable in this way, because you can prevent someone else from taking it, and thereby prevent loss.

Well, if you argue to "either risk your life to defend your property or to loose every right you have but your life" I agree that you should risk your life. But I'm talking about a mixed system. You won't get your rifle and storm the parliament just because the taxes were increased from 18% to 19%. You have to balance between your values. When the taxes increase you don't loose all your property so it is hardly a cause fighting for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but at a certain point the situation will be so bad that it will become unbearable (if they keep increasing the laws and all that). You have to judge for yourself when this is, but I don't think you can remain rational for long once this occurs, when the country has become a virtual dictatorship for example. When it becomes impossible to live rationally, then you can either become irrational or do something about the situation and perhaps die. I think I would prefer that, to living when no further values are possible to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I tend to believe that to *overcome* an irrational society one has to sacrifice oneself.
I agree that one ought not to make sacrifices, nor fight windmills. On the other hand, do not simply add up the physical, non-spiritual values in life and ignore spiritual ones. It is really does not work to simply think "right thoughts" and never act on them in any way. Indeed, it begs the question: why even think those thoughts? what's the point?

Man is truly a being of self-made soul. One can gain value from an act, even if the only outcome is in affirming the sanctity, independence and efficacy of your mind. Picture a child who quietly complies with his mother's demand, knowing that worse consequences could follow if he protests, but still pokes his tongue out when her back is turned. Why does he do that? There is no visible value to doing so; but, often there is value to him even in a protest that only he knows about. Ayn Rand put it poetically...

...anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.

In summary, the value of activism is not merely in external outcomes. Do not assign too much weight to it's value to yourself, and do not do it as a duty; but, on the other hand, do not think it has zero value to you.

There are other values to be gained from activism too, but I'll save that for another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post.

I think I do/did not understand the concept 'self-sacrifice'. What is '(self-)sacrifice'?

Let's assume 'socialism' is your 'value', is it then 'self-sacrifice' if you give up your private property to gain this "spiritual-value"?

Can someone give me a clear definition of 'sacrifice'? Is it just related to the values while choosing and weighing the values is a question of morals and rationality? Or do you already 'sacrifice' yourself when you choose a certain value?

One of the messages of Objectivism is that you should pursue your own values. Ayn Rand says that these values should not primarily concern the happiness of others but on the other hand, if your own happiness depends on putting other people's well-being above your own, ...

My own explanation would be:

As long as you don't put other's interests/values above your own you are not acting self-sacrificially. When you put other's for example well-being above your own then you are not acting self-sacrificially because you've chosen how to help that person.

For example if you just give a beggar 1000$ so that he can persue his own values (for example buying booze) then you are acting self-sacrificially. If you think that you want to actually improve the beggar's life, think that that the values he has chosen will not be able to achieve that and invest the 1000$ dollars in getting him a job then you are not acting self-sacrificially.

Would you agree with that?

@Maarten:

Yes, true. But at this point you act for your own sake anyways, when it becomes so bad that your own property become practically worthless then things look different. Then the decision is clear and you certainly do not act self-sacrificially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you agree with that?
Yes, I would. To sacrifice is to give up the greater for the lesser, where greater and lesser are defined by your standards and values. The concrete direct-recipient may not be you. You may do something for a child, or a wife, or a beggar (as in your example) because it fits into your scheme of values; or you could do it because you think it's the right thing to do, even though it does not fit your values. The latter is self-sacrifice according to your code of values. To the extent that your code is rational, self-sacrifice is bad for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farmer B is offered a check from the government along with 10,000 other farmers who all will be accepting. There will be no reduction in produced goods so prices won't adjust. In this case, he's certainly not immoral in taking the check. He shouldn't let himself be destroyed just so Farmer A can take his spot.

What if Farmer B is given an option on how big that government check should be? He could take the smaller amount and with his superior ability and work ethic his family's physical existence would be assured for the time being. Or he could take the bigger check and buy a hot tub. While a similar situation has been debated before on this forum with differing opinion, I contend he should enjoy his hot tub. More than that, he should enjoy his new jet ski if the government offers more.

Justice and fairness has been destroyed and not by him. Farmer B should be protesting with one hand and accepting tax money in the other. Trying to calculate what is stolen and accepting only that amount back is impossible. Even if possible, it's not his obligation. If anything sucking more money out of the system will show how impractical, unstable, and unfair it is.

I have a couple questions. Wouldn't Farmer B accepting those government checks be a compromise with an irrational system? How does morality allow him to accept the check just because Farmer A is? If someone steals from me, is it morally correct for me to steal from him rather than address it through legal means? Isn't that the purpose of the government, to protect our property, or is the government negated and we're all vigilanties? If someone steals from me, is it moral to take back just what was taken, or can I take back as much as I possibly can? If just by someone or some thing such as the government doing something that is irrational allows me the right to do what I wish to them since they did it first, could I morally strike back against every parent that has a child in a public school because they are taxing me to educate their children?

I had read 'How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?' with the hopes of getting a better idea on how to answer some of my questions, but I think it ended up raising a lot more than it answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple questions. Wouldn't Farmer B accepting those government checks be a compromise with an irrational system? How does morality allow him to accept the check just because Farmer A is? If someone steals from me, is it morally correct for me to steal from him rather than address it through legal means? Isn't that the purpose of the government, to protect our property, or is the government negated and we're all vigilanties?

Very good question(s), made me think, too.

You have to look at how you get the government subsidies. The farmer does initiate force at no point. (Theoretically) The government asks the people from whom to take the money and where to spend it.

Now, just by accepting that money you are not 'fueling' the system. It does not matter if you take it or don't (because you have competitors who will take it), the money gets taken and spent whatever you do.

The point at where you would indirectly initiate force is when voting for (or directly lobbying) a party who supports taxation and government subsidies. As long as you don't do it you don't even have to speak out against it (although this would be the moral thing to do) to remain rational / moral.

On the other hand if you actively lobby for more government taxation and subsidies you are acting immoral.

If someone steals from me, is it moral to take back just what was taken, or can I take back as much as I possibly can? If just by someone or some thing such as the government doing something that is irrational allows me the right to do what I wish to them since they did it first, could I morally strike back against every parent that has a child in a public school because they are taxing me to educate their children?

If there is one you could morally strike back at all it would be the voter who voted for the taxation, not the individual parent who, as shown in the example of the farmer above, simply uses the system while not necessarily initiating force.

Basicly it gets down to this: 10 people, 6 vote to hang you / take your property. So the only ones you may morally strike back is not all 10 people but only those who voted for hanging you / taking your property. Or, in a representative democracy, you may not strike back against 'the government' (or 'the police') to remain moral, but only against those who support that decision.

You may initiate force when there is no other way to protect (or regain) your (stolen) property or speak out against it in order to change the system. The question is where the turning point is. This can only be answered on an individual basis, it depends on how much you value freedom and your current semi-free status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point at where you would indirectly initiate force is when voting for (or directly lobbying) a party who supports taxation and government subsidies.
I agree, but only if this means voting for the worse of the alternatives being presented.

In fact, I have a peeve against those who do not vote in certain elections. I can actually understand people not voting in a national election where there are so many issues with one side better on some and the other better on others. I can also understand people not voting in local elections, where they have no clue about the people on the ballot and would have to spend a lot of time finding out, and it probably would not make a big difference anyway.

However, when new taxes, bond-measures, and "propositions" are put to vote (US state and local elections), many of them are narrow enough that the moral choice is clear. In such cases, I hold people responsible for not voting for the good or against the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... that depends on how you interpret a "vote" of someone who does not go to the election. If the result of the three leading parties is '50% 40% 10%' then you assume that everyone who did not vote voted '50% 40% 10%'. But is that really what that specific person wanted?

In such a system it is impossible to not vote, no seat in the parliament remains empty if the people don't vote (actually there is a party in germany called the 'non-voters party' who would do exactly that (if they get enough votes) to protest against the current political situation).

If the state had no money to spend voting would be much easier and political discussions would be much more about the real issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with softwarenerd regarding the comment on spiritual values.

Emotionally when I hear about any one of....I'm going to guess....thousands of schemes for reallocation of wealth(legalized theft)...I am inclined to support them. Everyone but me ought to take in as much "free money" as possible so as to hasten the inevitable economic collapse. For example, when they instituted the "lets steal lots of my money to pay for free medicine for old people with poor foresight" scheme called the medicare drug plan...or when they refuse to alter the worlds largest pyrimid scheme, known as social security, I am quite certain they moved economic collapse forward by 20 years or better. Being a devout pessimist with regard to the ability of our current government to change for the better, economic collapse would in my oppinion be a step forward as a certain amount of reorginsation would neccesarily follow. The bigger the crash...the more the change. Might be worse after, but at least there'd be a chance of moving towards capitalism.

Intellectually though, I realize "taint no such thing as a free lunch" so with regard to myself I do not accept money from government(excluding a tax refund if any that I might get). The price that I see is that the acceptence of government funding is a surefire way to obliterate your self-esteem. I run a small construction company and could make a lot of money(much more then the private sector) by bidding on government contracts. I could bid but I would have a much better chance of getting those contracts if I pursue "friendships" with beaurcrats I despise or politicians I despise more-their friendships only require campaign cotributions.. Now suppose I do that. Make a nice size boat load of money after a decade or two and then think about my accomplishment. I could lie to everyone else that I'm a "self-made man" but when I looked in the mirror everyday I'd know that I probably couldn't have done it without "a little bit of help".

When I first started I in my line of work I worked for a real first rate guy, a hank rearden sort of chap. He built his business basically from scratch and did very well for himself. He's happy in that serious joyful all is right in the universe sort of way. Antoher guy I knew started the same sort of business under the name of his girlfriend so as to acquire a government subsidized loan for 0% interest to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, part of some "supporting female entreprenuer's at my expense" nonsense. He was always unhappy in that "I hate the world cause it never gave me a chance "sort of way. Also he was out of business a few years later. In short my ex boss had self-esteem....the other guy didn't. that is the clearest example of the "spiritual" cost of "free" money that I have ever encountered first hand.

So I say in the interest of society take as much free money as you can get your hands on, but if you give a rats patoohey about your self-esteem, then stay away from it. The only way I could fathom taking it was if you fancied yourself a modern day ragnar dansksold and were stealing as much as possible and returning it to the producers based on tax returns. If that's your plan by the way, let me know so I can send you the last 15 years of my tax returns :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...