thx...

Great input.

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.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I drink Coke because I like it better than Pepsi, and I don't see that that would or should change if I invest in PepsiCo or even take a job there.

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...

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

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.

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.

"...except in a society such as Fascist Economy or State Economy where even when private ownership is allowed it's heavily monitored and guided." I think we're closer to this every day.

In the current environment of special interests, my original example is quite relevant.

Yeah, thanks. I did laugh at the comment.

In a situation you describe, the answer should be obvious, whether you are an Objectivist or just a good moral citizen. There may be much less obvious situations were you invest in what you think is an ethical company, only to find out later that it isn’t. I don’t believe you can be faulted for the investment, although once you know, you need to take the obvious action.

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..

Nuremberg. Yes.

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

VERY interesting answer. Thanks much.

Kruschev also said that he had already sown the seeds of the West's fall and that in forty or fifty years those seeds would bear fruit. I'd say he was pretty prescient on that point.

We have many people who do not appreciate the liberty they have and clamor for their own oppression - even voting it into office. Some do so believing that they will be pulled into the ranks of power by those they install in positions of authority. Some do so because they believe the lies they are told by the media - especially when those lies come with "free" stuff. Some do so because they do not want to be free and take responsibility for that freedom. Most simply can not fathom a world where what they have is gone and so do not see the slow, steady, progressive (pun intended) loss of freedoms.

"To transport citizens" shows no use for acceptable reasons. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite is inferred.

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!"