NO.
In the scenario you've set up an Objectivist, or anyone else would be as evil as the inventor if he invested in the company making such a product. It is possible to invest there if the use of the product is not known to him, although in this case it would be pretty unlikely. The usual excuse for such a buying practice as well as other horrors is, "it's nothing personal" which makes me want to shout, "Yes it is, you moron!"

Invest in yourself as the means of production.

Your example is turning your decision from rational to emotional due to the supplied partial context.

Tell me, would you expect the same reactions if they manufactured guns?

Partial context - you are assuming they are to be used on citizens with no valid reason. If the contract stipulated prisoner transfer would that change your opinion?

Sorry... Socrates here again...

So WHY are you (Joe) investing in Anything in the First Place?!

To support 'causes' you believe in? You'd never buy the stock in the first place. QED.

To make as much profit, dividends or capital gains so that you can Use Those Gains for Whatever You Want?... Well, look at the balance sheets of the Hitler Railroad Corp versus any and all other investments you could make. And choose accordingly.

Or some mix of the two?

Any "conclusion" that the One Way Or The Other is Right OR Wrong puts artificial limits on the individual's investing choices. And makes it a Moral Decision, and Moral Decisions don't tend to have rational bases...

Ok, ducking and running. Cheers, all...

Isn't being an Objectivist a person that can look at a situation objectively and see the value or disvalue; and most of all, see the consequence of their decisions about either.

What good or value is created by making money on something that will ultimately destroy that value or even future values to be had or created.

The only facet left I'd like to ask about is this...What if the people want it? The citizenry knows about the sale of these train cars with shackles AND agrees that it is in the best interest of the country to allow the government to target groups as it sees fit in order to haul away and detain those people for the best interest of the collective? In this case you have a product that flies in the face of Objectivism yet, in not wanting it, the Objectivist is in a small minority. Does that change it? Ignorance fuels the fire vs deception.

A similar example, for argument's sake, could be that municipal water suppliers are directed to lace all drinking water with Prozac. You, or any Objectivist, believes this is bad. However, the vast majority of people think it's a good idea. The government has shown many studies, in this case, indicating that this will make people happier. Do you buy stock in the company who makes Prozac while buying an RO water system for your family?

Thanks again.

I don't see how this situation could possibly be a quandary for anyone. Why is there a question about Objectivist Morality?

nope;;; it's like sponsoring Nazis. -- j
.

He should destroy the company. San Sebastian style.

If he knows that that is going to happen, no. I also
do not think it is right for an Objectivist to invest
in totalitarian states. (I also do not think it would
have been right for American Northerners to buy
cotton picked from slave plantations in the days
before the Civil War; however, there may have
been a possibility that some cotton was picked
by free people--though unlikely).When I was in
the Naval Reserve, we were told that we might be
called up, that maybe the oil industry (or indus-
tries) would be nationalized; I said nothing at the
time,but thought that if that happened, I would
have no choice but to refuse, and then I guess
I would have been court-martialed. However, it
didn't happen.

IMHO, You should be investing in things that promote your life or lifestyle, but that also comes with a caveat. If you are going to invest in Brand A soda, you shouldn't be buying Brand B. The best way I could equate it is that I used to work for a service company that had a contract with a certain convenience store. While I worked for them, when I needed to go to a convenience store, I would go to one of those convenience stores rather than a competitor because that competitor didn't help pay my salary. When I no longer had ties to that company, I chose to utilize what was best for me. Personally, I think that it was good (while I was doing that) so that people who saw me at work, also knew that I was checking on them even when I wasn't at work. Perhaps that way of thinking is why I'm not super well off also..

Everybody, thanks for the answers I...uh, "Joe" really appreciates it. Really - great feedback.

If the rail cars are being manufactured to transport violent criminals, invest away. If they are being made to transport political prisoners and intimidate ordinary citizens, stay away. It's a judgment call that depends heavily on context and on how much the investor knows regarding the government's intentions.

Keep the stock but go to stockholder meetings and object to their unpardonable product lines. If you sell the stock you will put it into the hands of those who approve of the objectionable behavior.

If one does not, one may actually be fueling one's own oppression.

I think you should keep the shares only if there is a movement of shareholders voting for an initiative to get the company out of this controversial and immoral business.

There are so many worthwhile businesses to invest in. There's no need to invest in businesses you don't believe in.