Is it moral for an Objectivist to invest in gun manufacturer stocks?
A week or two ago I asked whether or not I was too late to invest in the stocks of gun manufacturers, some of which were up 70 or 80% in 2015. I probably am too late to profit from such an investment.
When I think of guns, I think of my own self-defense. However, if I invest in gun manufacturer stock prices going up as a result of the increasing chaos brought on by the looter/moocher cabal, am I violating the Objectivist principle regarding initiation of the use of force? Am I supporting statist thugs? I want to be non-contradictory about this, and yet profit immensely by my support of the 2nd Amendment.
When I think of guns, I think of my own self-defense. However, if I invest in gun manufacturer stock prices going up as a result of the increasing chaos brought on by the looter/moocher cabal, am I violating the Objectivist principle regarding initiation of the use of force? Am I supporting statist thugs? I want to be non-contradictory about this, and yet profit immensely by my support of the 2nd Amendment.
A gun is a tool, nothing more. Is it moral to invest in a manufacturer of hammers, knives, baseball bats, anything else that can be used to kill?
People have been killing each other since there have been people. Absent a gun, they will use some other means. People can kill with their bare hands.
The morality quandry is over action, not an item.
The surge in those buying guns to defend themselves against the growing chaos and statist threats to disarm them are not responsible for the chaos and the threats, and neither are the gun manufacturers. Rising gun stock prices and financial success of the manufacturers providing a service are a consequence, not a cause of the chaos and threats.
ANY weapon can be used for self defense. Which tool is proper for the job depends on the situation.
For example...
0-15 yards, handgun or shotgun
10 - 50 yards submachine gun or semi auto equivalent
Over 50 yards rifle, assault rifle, etc
Related moral question to ponder.
Two military actions that destroy two cities.
One uses a mix of high explosive and incendiaries, both conventional munitions.
The other uses a single nuclear weapon.
If one is considered "good" and the other "bad" which is which and most importantly why?
Is either "good"?
I began to think many objections to nuclear weapons are simply selfish fear. Some nuclear weapons opponents can imagine nukes going off in their cities but, can't imagine an enemy nation fire bombing Toronto or Seattle. Therefore we must ban nuclear weapons but, small arms, artillery, tanks, and conventional bombs are OK.
Most people know virtually nothing about nuclear anything. Since they have no actual knowledge, reason has nothing to judge with so emotion jumps into the gap.
We're doomed by the ignorance and stupidity of those around us.
same enemy, and by the same side.
There are any number of offshoots to a particular industry...some moral, some not. I'm not sure we can completely have one without the other.
One other thing...firearms can and are used to feed hungry families...moral, or not?
We did not state that as an initial parameter, but an important factor.
Most Colt and Ruger products are sold to the public.
"Lucky for Colt (and the generations that would later benefit from his contribution to the industry), the war with Mexico broke out in the 1840’s, and Samuel Colt saw his opportunity. The aspiring gunsmith quickly found an audience with the US Government for his innovative firearm designs. Realizing the full potential of crony-capitalism, the entrepreneur almost went broke entertaining politicians, generals, and frontiersmen. He was, undoubtedly, the Solyndra lobbyist of his day. With the helpful contract from America’s military, Colt quickly etched his name in America as the creator of the “gun that won the West”."
http://finance.townhall.com/columnist...
I se no inherent moral conflict, in the sense that even if inspired by increasing chaos and threats of further gun control, I would think most of the new profits of the gun manufacturers are to individuals for legitimate self-defense purposes.
A possible exception might be a manufacturer who only supplied the government, or worse, a major arms manufacturer who sold clearly offensive weapons either to our government or other to promote immoral conflicts. If one could identify such companies. To me the "military-industrial complex" is hardly a myth, and I would not want to invest in it.
For instance, Raytheon is a defense contractor, a member of the Military Industrial Complex. Raytheon has other divisions not concerned with the mil space, like Amana appliances. Do you not buy an Amana microwave because they are owned by Raytheon?
We live in the world as it is and make our choices according to what is possible. We can't stop buying anything, including appliances, from anyone or any company that might have done something we disapprove of. That is not Objectivism and leads to the "drop out" "go Galt" mentality with its foot stomping frozen absolutes and floating abstractions that misrepresent Galt. Ayn Rand did not argue for going on strike as a means of social change or shunning the markets.
The entire history of human civilization has had a mixture of different kinds of people. We all have our personal limits and act accordingly, choosing the best kind of life we can in cultural circumstances we did not make and cannot control. If the best had not continued on we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Some of those who worked in advance technology at Raytheon, like Eli Brookner and his group, found it a very good place to work. But like any big corporation it's understandable that others would find it "neither the best nor the worst". I have found it best to avoid the big corporations.
I have nothing against defense contractors at all.
Remember the first rule of holes.
The twisted and incestuous relationships between companies, divisions of companies, and the myriad products they produce will be one giant exercise in frustration.
Much of what we post here will be frustrating as well. In the end its something only you can decide.
Like every other decision YOU have to make.
I hope we have been of some help, but it would not surprise me if we made the dilemna worse.
While I do deliberate in decisionmaking, I always ask myself whether or not I can live with my decision. If the answer is no, then I know that is not the right decision. Fortunately, the rate-limiting step in the decisionmaking process is the acquisition of information, not any second guessing.
I just increased my position 2 weeks ago when California banned AR15s beginning Jan 1 (and my legal pre-ban AR15s will skyrocket in value). I expect SWH to have a bumper of a 3rd and 4th quarter with probably a million sold in CA alone. Every millennial is out shopping for at least a pre-ban receiver if not a whole rifle.
How does private ownership increase chaos? The republican voting high gun ownership areas have had zero problems.
The Dallas massacre was carried out by an angry black man who'd probably converted to Islam while serving in Afghanistan. The Denver (theater) massacre was carried out by a mentally disturbed white man who'd failed in his graduate program.
Newtown is probably a liberal place, full of people who vote and it's got gun shops so, there are probably gun owners in Newtown.
The Newtown (Sandyhook) massacre was carried out by a mentally ill white man who ranted incoherent ideas on radio talk shows.
Omaha is full of conservative gun owners who vote.
The Omaha massacre was carried out by a mentally ill teenager who wanted to be famous.
I think the common threads in our mass shootings are mental illness and Islam. I don't think I can tie them to political stance or rates of gun ownership.
Statistics indicate rates of gun ownership have an inverse relationship with rates of violent crime.
So, guns deter rational criminals but, not mentally ill or politically motivated people.
for example the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer.
Whether or not you buy stock in a weapons manufacture (in your case gun manufacturer) is an individual decision but it is not an immoral thing to do.
I agree with this everything Technocracy said.
Also, an investor could conceivably vote his proxy to support board members who want the company to focus on non-gov't business development, if the issue ever came up. Even if you were investing in bonds or preferred stock with no voting rights, though, I still think the item itself does not support statism.
I reject the premise that there is an increase in looter/moocher chaos, esp if you take the long view. Before the industrial revolution, wealth was limited mostly be arable land, divvied up family history, might makes right, and divine right of kings. Today the average person understands he could open a shop or invent a technology and license it, this would add value to the world, and he would have property rights to it. The average person expects disputes to be settled justly in court and is rightly indignant when the courts and/or gov't are unfair. Mob protection rackets are less common, and people are rightly indignant when the gov't's actions remind us of a racket. Affluent people with their act together would find settling disputes with a duel, like Hamilton and Burr, to be absurd.
The mega-trend is away looting, mooching, and use of force. If you can exploit a market anomaly where the market undervalues a gun-making business over a period of a few years, your identifying it and acting on it is part of what makes the market work.
Is it a good idea? Maybe but be ready to sell in November if just to protect your capital.
Thanks to the Commander-Of-Grief and the evil hag, lately I've been visiting gun stores like I never have before. You could say what I'm investing in is being armed to the teeth.
Yesterday I bought two shoot all day Glock magazines for a 9mm carbine my son is PC-order putting together for me, I finally found a holster that fits my 357 and I'm thinking about a Beretta Tomcat for a back gun. My son was studying medium-sized Sig Sauer pistols for a future purchase while I was there.
A small Sig is my concealed carry pocket pistol.
Should Trump be elected? No. The buying panic should subside.
Should Shillary be elected? No. Anti-depressants, hankies and paper tissues that come in boo-hoo boxes may be the only good investments. I'd stock up on survival eats also.
My significant other has carried a Tomcat for over a decade. It's light, easily concealed, extremely reliable and, at short range a well placed 32 JHP will do the job. She loves it.
I put a set of Crimson Trace grips on it for her. It's easy to put a full magazine inside a 2" circle at 25'. It's not usually legal to shoot people more than 40 or 50 feet away because, unless they're shooting at you it's hard to prove they are an imminent threat.
If only the grips were a bit longer I'd consider carrying one myself. Instead I've got an XDS45 which is heavier and less comfortable and I'm not quite as accurate with it but, at least I can get my full hand on the extended magazine.
As people become more and more disenchanted with the establishment, more are going to flip out and do mass killings. Bound to happen.
The poster should understand that what others do is not the defining criteria of moral action. You have to decide whether your action will cause someone to use force against someone else. I have never been good at sales because I tend to tell the purchaser up front what can go wrong with a product and not what is good about the product because I would be transferring my troubles to someone else, despite the others wrong choice for buying the product. That is my only golden rule to not do to others what I don't like. It is nice and not pushy like the usual Golden Rule. If you are afraid that your investment will cause more deaths or injuries because of your action, please do not invest though any causation on your part would be nearly non-existent. Would you invest in a drug company? There, besides possibly saving lives, you might consider all those who would somehow abuse the use of the drugs by not following directions or being careless around children. A friend of mine just recently thought that a child proof heart drug container was OK around a 3 year old. Kid need her stomach pumped.
Probably the most bad moral action you can take is to invest due to that going-to-get-rich emotion behind most gambling type investments rather than an investment towards creating something new and useful.
It would depend on how much you think your investment would have changed the outcome with or without your involvement, perhaps.
I know this is a rather extreme example, possibly more about "chain of responsibility" or something, but if you are asking about 'initiating force', how far down the chain does it go from your investment, and the actual use of the product for an immoral purpose?
the 2nd amendment is a poorly written summary of John Locke and David Hume's philosophical posits on natural rights of the individual to individually defend themselves by whatever means necessary...
i trade the markets for profit, whether they are going up or down...i will short the NYSE at the same time i pledge alliegence, shoot off fireworks, eat apple pie, and bring marshmellows to the bondfire of crashing markets, with chocolate, and graham crackers and celebrate the 4th of july...while proclaiming "I Am John Galt"...
First ancillary benefits to moochers are irrelevant. The key point is are you benefitting yourself and using rational self-interest, i.e. is that investment harming you personally now or in the future?
I own plenty of guns and ammo, have a concealed carry permit as does my wife. I also do not own any stock in gun or ammo manufacturers, although I should have dumped every dime into them back when Oblabbermouth and Moose were elected. I would have quadrupled my money.
You have a strategic choice coming up. Buy gun stocks now, avoid ones being sued right now. Sell on Oct 31, then if Hillary is elected, buy options and lots of them that close in February or March when she takes office If Trump is elected, short them since the feeling may be that people will not have to buy and stock up for fear of gun control and their prices will fall.
I am getting ready to spend about $10,000 in options to do just that.
Nothing about the oppressors is relevant here; you are not initiating force, you are not causing more chaos by buying stock, you could not be supporting them, etc. Cause and effect....
Load more comments...