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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
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.
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.