Objectivist Billionaires

Productivity Member Writing
41

Part 2

I think it is this problem that largely accounts for the fact that most people value being called an Objectivist than they value being (called) a great achiever in their field. They are apparently more proud of that label than of an identity that emphasises their personal achievement in this world.

I do not know this to be true among any Objectivists I know, including myself. I am proud of all of the things I am and all of the things that I have achieved, which includes happiness.

I am proud of my career as a journalist and the influence I have and the difference that I make in my community as a newspaper editor. I am also proud that my daughter, despite her physical disabilities, is able to be happy and demonstrate heroism by proving disabilities are not an impediment to happiness. This has been largely because of how we have educated her and in our insistence that she have the most innovative and best technology at her disposal, and our insistence that nothing should unreasonably stand in her way.

I’m also proud of my children and of the fact that I actively stand for what I believe both as a journalist and outside of work, and that I am able to provide my family with a good life and with happiness without having to be evasive or dishonorable.

The fact that I am an Objectivist is just a part of all those things that make up the sum of what I am. I could have some other system of belief and still be a good person. But Objectivism is my chosen philosophy, and as such I am naturally as proud of that as I would expect a Christian or a Jew to be proud of his beliefs. If one is not proud of one’s beliefs, perhaps he should seek out another.

42

Objectivist Billionaires: Where are they?

I would have expected a number of noticeable full-fledged Objectivists among the annual rich lists of Forbes magazine, among the owners of big Fortune (Magazine) 500 companies, among the profiles on achievement.org, and so on; instead, full or serious Objectivists are conspicuously missing on such lists of achievers and innovators. None of the many professing Objectivists one meets on the various online forums (and there are many), apparently exhibiting great understanding of the philosophy, ever confess to being billionaires (or even just millionaires - in a country where an impressive percentage of the population has achieved this), Nobel prize laureates, breakthrough inventors, bestselling authors, Oscar-winning movie directors and actors, or even world class architects. To me, they generally seem to be struggling in the same pool of mediocrity typical of the very average person in any country. They seem to be just as lost for purpose as the guy next door.

This, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of the “Objectivist movement” to create as much impact on the world as it should (I believe). It does not produce as much EVIDENCE of the power of a rational philosophy (on the world) as one would expect.

See my post above, but I would add that I certainly am not “struggling in the same pool of mediocrity typical of the very average person in any country.”

I am quote proud of and love my work as a journalist (I am a newspaper editor) and the influence I have in my community, of my children, my wife and my family, of their values and of what I believe in, and that I live an honest and sincere life that I thoroughly enjoy.

I am certain that I am not the only Objectivist who is NOT lost for purpose. I demonstrate this on my job all the time, as well as in what I expect for and of my children, as well as my approach to raising a daughter who uses a wheelchair - all of which are far from the mainstream of mediocrity, mysticism and politically correct collectivism.

Finally, I am also quite certain that I am living a life of a far higher standard than the average person, and likely even the above-average person of most of the rest of the world’s less-developed nations. I don’t need to go into detail to describe the benefits I and my family have living in the richest state of the richest nation on Earth. That I am fortunate to live here, and do so as an Objectivist is a large part of what helps make my life happy.

43

That maybe so but claiming such does not mean that that is the reason for wanting to achieve. Creating inspiration is/should be a secondary for anyone, including artists (and it was secondary for Rand - since you brought her up).

I do not believe I said it is the reason for achieving. And I do not believe I claimed it is a primary.

Other’s response should not be a measure of the value of your work.

I do not agree with this.

If you believe you’re a great singer and you decide to go on “American Idol” and all the judges say you suck, and every record company you take your work to in the world says “you better choose another career”, doesn’t that say anything about the value of your work? (or imagine if you believe you’re a great stand-up comedian, but always gets only half-sure giggles from the audiences).

[Note that I said “as long as you respect them as a sufficiently rational society” so I’m not talking about a context in which a society has become totally or highly irrational, something I do not believe has happened in at least the freest societies of the world.]

44

Someone who has not achieved (and is not realistically working towards achieving) something great that OTHERS can SEE (sight of an achievement) can not claim to have understood at least that particular Randian injunction.

First, injunction? Is that what you think it means to understand Objectivism? To think of it as a series of injunctions? I’m not just picking at your language here - from the rest of your statements, this is clearly the method you are in fact applying.

Furthermore, the worst part of your construct is your contempt for ideas. You seem to consider them to be disconnected playthings for immature children while the “real” people are out there doing things that the concrete-bound can understand and admire.

I guess gangster rappers with their fame and their bling bling are better in your view than anyone here. After all, OTHERS can SEE their achievements, and if you can’t do that then they’re totally worthless.

I therefore still think that there should realistically be a good number of very high and visible achievers among serious Objectivists (in their different respective fields) especially after being in those fields for a sufficiently long time.

This is pure rationalism. What jobs have you held? What positions and recognition have you achieved in them? How do you know that achievers must be recognized in today’s societies? And furthermore, how do you know that everyone here who you condemn must have been in their chosen field for a sufficiently long time? How do you know, even, that everyone here is in their chosen field and not just working a 9-5 to pay the bills while they study, go to school, etc?

45

I do not believe I said it is the reason for achieving. And I do not believe I claimed it is a primary.

You seem to be judging the value of achievement by it’s impact on others (visibility, inspiration ect).

Sophia:

Other’s response should not be a measure of the value of your work.

If you believe you’re a great singer and you decide to go on “American Idol” and all the judges say you suck, and every record company you take your work to in the world says “you better choose another career”, doesn’t that say anything about the value of your work? (or imagine if you believe you’re a great stand-up comedian, but always gets only half-sure giggles from the audiences).

If your goal is to make people laugh yet you are not able to do so - then you are not meeting your chosen objective. The value of your work is judged by how well you are meeting your goal.

The value of Rand’s ideas is based on their adherence to reality (her goal was to identify truths about reality). The value of her writing is based on how well she was able to use it to illustrate her ideas.

The value of one’s singing is based on how well it meets the objective standards of producing good sound as that is the goal of singing and your assessment of your skill should also be based on that.

Many successful artists have been told at one point in their past “you better choose another career”. On the other hand, the fact that many people are buying particular artist’s music today does not mean that he is good.

46

You seem to be judging the value of achievement by it’s impact on others (visibility, inspiration ect).

Indeed, but that’s different from saying it’s “the reason” why a person should decide to achieve.[and keep in mind at all times how I have described those “others” - as my working context].

If your goal is to make people laugh yet you are not able to do so - then you are not meeting your chosen objective. The value of your work is judged by how well you are meeting your goal.

From this statement,

  1. a person whose goal is to make people laugh by simply exposing his nudity can be said to have “valuable work” as long as he is meeting his goal.(“The value of your work is judged by how well you are meeting your goal”).

  2. It seems you believe this as confirmed by your next statement:

The value of Rand’s ideas is based on their adherence to reality (her goal was to identify truths about reality).

In parentheses, you confirm that you believe Rand’s ideas should be judged by their adherence to reality because this was her goal. So the value of Kant’s ideas should also be judged by his own goal?

Many successful artists have been told at one point in their past “you better choose another career”.

See how I put my example. Were these artists told this by every expert they went to in their field or were they told this by just one or two people? I would be surprised to find MANY successful singers, for example, who were told by everyone that they had a bad voice and they still made it (without adjusting that voice). If they are there, they are a very big exception. I think the vast majority of successful singers were highly applauded for their talent even as young children.

On the other hand, the fact that many people are buying particular artist’s music today does not mean that he is good.

I don’t get it. I thought you said his work is valuable as long as he is achieving his goal. So, what if his goal is to make people enjoy his music [as was the goal of the comedian was to make people laugh] and he is selling many records?

The value of one’s singing is based on how well it meets the objective standards of producing good sound as that is the goal of singing and your assessment of your skill should also be based on that.

The value of one’s singing. But it should be of value to whom? If you are just singing for the shower (to yourself) then that’s one thing. But if you want to sing for a living, then your singing is not valuable IF other people are not impressed [keeping my stated context in mind].

Now, of course, if it is a good sound they will be impressed. The fact of the matter is that you do not always know the exact details of what makes a really good sound (theoretically) and when other people love it, it confirms to you that it is good indeed (like I said, that’s why capitalism inspires individual innovation and productivity and socialism does not).

[And even if you DO know exactly what makes a really good sound (theoretically), this does not mean that you are always able to successfully express that physically (practically) - other people’s response (your market) can confirm for you that you have indeed managed to integrate mind and body in this venture, and that should make you quite happy.]

47

Indeed, but that’s different from saying it’s “the reason” why a person should decide to achieve.[and keep in mind at all times how I have described those “others” - as my working context].

The majority of ‘others’ hold very mixed premisses. The opinion of the mob is far from being an objective evaluation based on rational standard. We are far from having a rational majority.

In parentheses, you confirm that you believe Rand’s ideas should be judged by their adherence to reality because this was her goal. So the value of Kant’s ideas should also be judged by his own goal?

What it means to successfully reach a certain goal (what it means to produce a value) is not subjective. As a philosopher, and thus the same stardard applies to him as to Rand, he failed. Was his goal to produce destruction? - perhaps but I don’t know that. Part of success is also chosing only rational goals.

I think the vast majority of successful singers were highly applauded for their talent even as young children.

Right, like Ms. Spears.

The value of one’s singing. But it should be of value to whom?

To yourself because you find enjoyment from being able to do it so well. I have a question. Let’s say you are a magnificent singer stuck on a deserted island. Is the value of your singing less, in your opinion, because nobody else can benefit from it?

But if you want to sing for a living, then your singing is not valuable IF other people are not impressed [keeping my stated context in mind].

If someone is objectively good but not recognized he should make a living doing something else and continue singing. I have never said that people can not prevent you from achieving your goal (in this example being able to make a living doing it) but they do not determine actual value of your work.

Money is a measure of how others value your work - it is not necessarily a true measure of how good you are or how valuableyour work is. (it could be but it may not be and often is not). Many famous people feel like fakes because they have gained recognition (and monetary success) from others which they know they don’t deserve.

The fact of the matter is that you do not always know the exact details of what makes a really good sound (theoretically) and when other people love it, it confirms to you that it is good indeed (like I said, that’s why capitalism inspires individual innovation and productivity and socialism does not).

What makes art good is objective.

Capitalism promotes innovation because, as a system, it allows the innovator to be properly financially rewarded for his work. Whether or not he actually will be is another thing. In contrast, socialism strips him from that possiblity all together right from the start.

other people’s response (your market) can confirm for you that you have indeed managed to integrate mind and body in this venture, and that should make you quite happy.]

You mean the way Mr.Spears did? You mean the way everyone was impressed with Readen metal?

48

The majority of ‘others’ hold very mixed premisses. The opinion of the mob is far from being an objective evaluation based on rational standard. We are far from having a rational majority.

Yes, but some countries are sufficiently developed to have someone like John Galt be admired enough to make his story a bestseller for decades. If John Galt can be that appreciated by the general society [according to some survey, his story was only second in popularity to the Bible], I’d say almost any rational achiever can be quite appreciated in at least that particular society.

Right, like Ms. Spears.

Right. Like Ms Spears and many other very great singers and even great classical musicians. Not MANY of them were ever told that they had no talent (at least not by most people, and even less likely, by many experts).

Let’s say you are a magnificent singer stuck on a deserted island. Is the value of your singing less, in your opinion, because nobody else can benefit from it?

Yes it has less value (not necessarily no value) because I can not use it to make money for myself (by singing to others who would appreciate it and pay me).

What makes art good is objective.

I have not denied that. But this fact does not negate my point that you can use the response of other people to know that you are doing it right - practically right; that you are indeed proficient at it.

You mean the way Mr.Spears did? You mean the way everyone was impressed with Readen metal?

Ms Brittney Spears was/is not a bad singer. Her voice and music was quite good and yes, many people (especially young people) liked it and paid her for it. [This is not to say there are no bad artists who have a following from some irrational people, but I do not believe America is at a point where a rational or objectively good artist will have no following or even a less chance of success; otherwise you will have to explain to me the phenomenal success of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead and why seven of Spillane’s novels were among the top ten bestselling novels of all time IN AMERICA.]

However, in a fictional story where a society is presented as being extremely irrational - irrational enough to justify “shrugging” by rational people - one cannot expect to be appreciated for his rational achievement. That society is not America (or any relatively free society) by any stretch.

[Oh, and by the way, when I say Ms Spears achieved some “integration of mind and body”, this is only with respect to her music (and she was indeed happy for that); it does not imply that she was integrated in every other area of her life (and that consequently affected her general happiness). We can still be inspired by her achievement in music even though she has not achieved as much in other personal areas, just as we can be inspired by the achievement of an athlete, even if he is not so developed in other personal areas, or even (more obviously) the similar achievement of a good artist.]

49

Yes, but some countries are sufficiently developed to have someone like John Galt be admired enough to make his story a bestseller for decades. If John Galt can be that appreciated by the general society [according to some survey, his story was only second in popularity to the Bible], I’d say almost any rational achiever can be quite appreciated in at least that particular society.

Not necessarily so. It is true that Americans have a rather positive sense of life and based on that they react positively to Rand’s fiction but most are still not fully rational and lacking explicit understanding of relevant issues. Most do not live on principle and instead are pragmatists.

I will agree with you on one point. I think we still live in the world in which achievement of values and thus happiness is possible.

Right. Like Ms Spears and many other very great singers and even great classical musicians.

This was sacrasm on my part. Ms. Spears is not a good singer.

Not MANY of them were ever told that they had no talent

Many good people are told that every day in all spheres of life.

Yes it has less value (not necessarily no value) because I can not use it to make money for myself (by singing to others who would appreciate it and pay me).

You measure value by money then. I don’t (not necessarily) and thus I don’t agree. Rand’s achievement would have been exactly the same even if she never made a dime from it (and Rand’s goal was not to become rich - it was a secondary outcome (same way it was a secondary outcome for Roark)).

I have not denied that. But this fact does not negate my point that you can use the response of other people to know that you are doing it right - practically right; that you are indeed proficient at it.

If their judgment is based on objective standard, if they are rational - yes. Majority is not.

We can still be inspired by her achievement in music even though she has not achieved as much in other personal areas, just as we can be inspired by the achievement of an athlete, even if he is not so developed in other personal areas, or even (more obviously) the similar achievement of a good artist.

I don’t find anything inspirational about Ms. Spears both when it comes to her professional and private life. She is one of the fakes but famous, I mentioned.

50

I will agree with you on one point. I think we still live in the world in which achievement of values and thus happiness is possible.

Indeed.

This was sacrasm on my part. Ms. Spears is not a good singer.

I knew very well that it was sarcasm.

Many good people are told that every day in all spheres of life.

If they are always or usually told that “they have no talent in their particular sphere (singing, acting, comedy, etc),” especially by experienced people in those fields, they should consider very seriously that they may indeed not be as talented as they think (we can all make mistakes). Of course there are stories of exceptional cases, but those are just that: exceptional cases (which is why they make the cover of a magazine).

You measure value by money then. I don’t (not necessarily) and thus I don’t agree.

You asked if that talent in that context (on an island) has LESS value, and i said yes (because of a particular way it would now fail to serve MY LIFE, my survival - and you still think it is not any less valuable? Isn’t your life your standard of value?). But I also emphasised that this does not necessarily mean it now has NO value, just less. So how could you possibly derive from that that i (only) measure value by money?

Rand’s achievement would have been exactly the same even if she never made a dime from it

Hm. I’m not sure about that. She would be very unique as a novelist if she considered herself successful novelist even if no one bought a single novel of hers [Remember we are talking about America, a society that still appreciates heroes in art, and still by and large appreciates good writing skill and craft].

I don’t find anything inspirational about Ms. Spears both when it comes to her professional and private life. She is one of the fakes but famous, I mentioned.

Well, you are certainly entitled to an opinion about the young lady. Perhaps you are not in the age group of her target market? Or you just don’t like that genre of music too much? I certainly don’t think she has a terrible voice, I think she’s okay. Do you like the voice and songs of her former boyfriend, Mr. Justin Timberlake? (Same type of music).

Anyway, I’m sure I’ve made my point. I have not said you should achieve primarily because you want money or you want recognition, etc (so you’ll do well by relenting on your attack on this position which I do not hold). But these rewards are inspiring to yourself because they give you some material feedback on your performance, NOT that they are the reason you do it. And your achievement inspires others because they can concretely see what’s possible with themselves with very hard work. It’s the greatest gift you can give to them, as it is the greatest gift you can give to yourself; there is no dichotomy.

Similarly, I think a person feels good (VERY good) when they meet a romantic partner who strongly admires them for their values. They do not pursue their values for the purpose of being admired by a potential partner. But they will certainly feel very happy - by way of feedback - when they do actually meet someone who expresses strong admiration for their values (besides other aspects), enough to want to spend the rest of their lives with them. I think that (rational) romantic love is a concrete measure of something you may only know spiritually (what you have achieved by way of values), just as money (or awards or promotions, etc) given to you by other people who value your work can be a similar concrete measure. [i am working on the assumption of a sufficiently rational society in both cases, a society in which there is a reasonably good probability of finding many such hero-loving people].

51

John Allison claimed that many Forbes 500 CEO’s are influenced by Ayn Rand, and there are also many famous multi-millionaire traders who made public the fact that they admired her work. E.g. Monroe Trout.

Being an “Objectivist” is hard, at least that is what I’ve come to conclude after being on these forums. No billionaire, let alone multi-millionaire is going to spend vast amounts of their time studying all sorts of deep philosophical abstractions… they are busy people. Sure they do have hobbies and I’m not saying they cant, maybe a few do but that is the exception.

52

If they are always or usually told that “they have no talent in their particular sphere (singing, acting, comedy, etc),” especially by experienced people in those fields, they should consider very seriously that they may indeed not be as talented as they think (we can all make mistakes). Of course there are stories of exceptional cases, but those are just that: exceptional cases (which is why they make the cover of a magazine).

I am not sure if they are exceptional cases - you just don’t hear about it. I have met at least one Objectivist - the founder and CEO of The Gilded Fork (my fav culinary site) Jennifer Ionnolo has her rejection letter from Oxford University to an MBA program framed in her office. If you read biographies of highly successful people such stories appear often.

You asked if that talent in that context (on an island) has LESS value, and i said yes (because of a particular way it would now fail to serve MY LIFE, my survival - and you still think it is not any less valuable? Isn’t your life your standard of value?).

What would you need money for on a deserted island? And yes you would not be able to feed yourself by singing - but it would not be rational for you to expect that given that there would not be anybody there to trade with.

I don’t agree that the value of something is necessarily dependent on its trade value, how much you can sell it for. That seems to me is your idea of value.

So how could you possibly derive from that that i (only) measure value by money?

Correct me if I am wrong but I sense that the way you measure value of someone’s work is through how much other people are willing to pay for it (thus your mentioning of free market). I however make a distinction between the market value of someone’s work and an objective (metaphysical if you will) value of someone’s work. Those two can be the same but not necessarily so.

Hm. I’m not sure about that. She would be very unique as a novelist if she considered herself successful novelist even if no one bought a single novel of hers [Remember we are talking about America, a society that still appreciates heroes in art, and still by and large appreciates good writing skill and craft].

Her goal was not to be a successful novelist - she did not write for that reason - it was only a tool she used. If that was her goal - the only thing she would need to do is to cater to the masses - tell them what they wanted to hear.

Perhaps you are not in the age group of her target market? Or you just don’t like that genre of music too much?

An objective evaluation has nothing to do with age or genre.

It’s the greatest gift you can give to them, as it is the greatest gift you can give to yourself; there is no dichotomy.

I don’t think that inspiring others is the greatest gift you can give to yourself. The greatest gift you can give to yourself is to reach your own potential which involves understanding yourself well and then setting, striving for, and achieving the right goals.

Similarly, I think a person feels good (VERY good) when they meet a romantic partner who strongly admires them for their values. They do not pursue their values for the purpose of being admired by a potential partner. But they will certainly feel very happy - by way of feedback - when they do actually meet someone who expresses strong admiration for their values (besides other aspects), whenough to want to spend the rest of their lives with them.

Yes, and I understand that you seek that psychological visibility when it comes to your personal success but that is different from what you have said in this thread about others being a good measure of the value of one’s achievement.

53

I am not sure if they are exceptional cases - you just don’t hear about it. I have met at least one Objectivist - the founder and CEO of The Gilded Fork (my fav culinary site) Jennifer Ionnolo has her rejection letter from Oxford University to an MBA program framed in her office. If you read biographies of highly successful people such stories appear often.

Sophia, you have continued to argue against something that I have not said. If you go back to the point where I introduced this particular example, I basically said it is very unlikely that someone who has a good voice (or talent) will be told “that’s a bad voice” or “you better find another career” by MANY people everywhere (especially, including experts in those fields, like the “American Idol” judges, record company executives, family and friends, etc). You said that there are in fact many such successful singers and I disputed that (unless they subsequently improved their voice through voice training, etc etc). But I have conceded that exceptions are possible.

You’ve met a business person who was rejected to Oxford for an MBA, as your counter-example. Firstly, this doesn’t show she has been rejected by MANY people; secondly, it is unlikely that Oxford knew this person well enough (i.e. personally) to be able to judge her business abilities (which are much more complex than singing ability). Thirdly, it is unlikely that Oxford accepts people to their MBA program just based on their business acumen (but of course I don’t know her full context); fourthly, it is VERY difficult for anyone to judge the business abilities of a person until they SHOW you how successful they have been in business; and 5. to be rejected by Oxford does not necessarily mean they do not believe that you can’t succeed in business.

I know there are many examples like that of your friend, but that is very different from what I specifically claimed.

What would you need money for on a deserted island? And yes you would not be able to feed yourself by singing - but it would not be rational for you to expect that given that there would not be anybody there to trade with.

This is precisely why that talent is less valuable given that context. “Less” is a comparison. So, we are comparing with what? With a context in which there are other people. The point of your Island hypothetical, as I understood it, was to present a situation in which there is NO market, contrasted with one where there is. THAT talent is definitely less valuable outside a market context. So is the talent of boxing, comedy, chess, etc - if you are alone on a deserted island (even skillful novel writing is not as valuable on this island, as it is in the world of people, unless you intend to one day go where there are people).

Correct me if I am wrong but I sense that the way you measure value of someone’s work is through how much other people are willing to pay for it (thus your mentioning of free market). I however make a distinction between the market value of someone’s work and an objective (metaphysical if you will) value of someone’s work. Those two can be the same but not necessarily so.

In my very last post, I had said that money is not the ONLY measure, which is why I said that the gift of singing possessed by the person on that Island can still have some value, it’s just less than its value would be in a market context where other people can appreciate it.

Her goal was not to be a successful novelist - she did not write for that reason - it was only a tool she used. If that was her goal - the only thing she would need to do is to cater to the masses - tell them what they wanted to hear.

Qua novelist, her goal was certainly to be successful. But that’s not the only thing she was, so this has to be integrated with all her other principles. [“SHE/HER” also refers to everything else about her soul that we know].

I don’t think that inspiring others is the greatest gift you can give to yourself.

I did not say that, Sophia. I said “achievement” (is the greatest gift you can give to yourself).

[Out of curiosity: what is the “metaphysical value” of someone’s work?

If by that you mean that a good work follows specific principles (eg particular esthetic principles for an art work), then I obviously agree. But I don’t see why this ethically precludes a person from measuring his success/achievement by the response of others (given a particular social context that I specified), since sometimes you may not be as proficient at physically applying these (objective) theoretical principles (to your work) as you might hope; i.e. at integrating body and mind effectively in your work. Two women can read the same cookery book and both can enjoy their own baking, but only one of them might hear people say “ooh, that was a very nice cake!” and they only buy cakes from her (after tasting both). Why can’t this be a reasonably valid measure of their achievements? But I have already said all this.]

I will allow you to make the last post (below) on this particular discussion (with me, that is). Thanks.

54

THAT talent is definitely less valuable outside a market context.

Why? Because you can not sustain yourself by doing it or because you can not trade it for something else? The standard of value for me is my long term happiness and not just sustaining my life, but of course in order to be happy at a minimum I must remain alive (for which I can find other ways). Why would a joy of singing be any less for me on a deserted island? Because nobody else can hear it?

I did not say that, Sophia. I said “achievement” (is the greatest gift you can give to yourself).

I must have misunderstood.

If by that you mean that a good work follows specific principles (eg particular esthetic principles for an art work), then I obviously agree.

Yes. In art it would be tied to what the purpose of art is.

But I don’t see why this ethically precludes a person from measuring his success/achievement by the response of others (given a particular social context that I specified), since sometimes you may not be as proficient at physically applying these (objective) theoretical principles (to your work) as you might hope; i.e. at integrating body and mind effectively in your work.

We don’t have the social context you specified. If they are using the right standard than yes but I think you are assuming too much of the public. My point is this (and based on our exchange here I don’t think you would disagree) that even if there is a market for something (like Ms. Spears records) it does not mean that it is good and similarly even if there is not a market for something, like in the case of Readen metal, it does not mean there is no value in it.

55

just as materialists do social engineering, producing awsome resembling short term results; spiritists do moral engineering producing such successes as Tom Cruise. Or for example I’ve seen a video about how Mormonism produces Millionaires.

But the point is, Objectivism is to Philosophy, what Laissez Faire Capitalism is to Economics. Sound long term results based on consistency at the expenses of short term investments