Showing posts with label Values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Values. Show all posts

Friday, December 22, 2017

The Moral Lessons I Drew From the Christmas Movie ‘Elf’

‘Elf’ is a 2003 Christmas movie with valuable life lessons. Superficially, the movie purports to show the “Christmas Spirit” as placing selfless spiritual values—like concern for others—over selfish material concerns like business and money-making. But the lesson drawn from the actions of the characters and the movie’s conclusion implies a different, opposite moral message.

Elf is the story of a human (Will Ferrell) adopted by Papa Elf (played by Bob Newhart), one of Santa’s elves. Upon growing up (physically, but still emotionally child-like), Buddy leaves the North Pole in search of his father, who doesn’t know his son exists. Buddy finds his father, employed as an executive for a publishing company run by a tyrannical, over-demanding boss who allegedly lacks “Christmas Spirit.”

Walter (James Caan), Buddy’s father, reluctantly takes Buddy into his home with his wife and their approximately 10-year old son Michael (Daniel Tay). But Buddy comes to feel unwanted by his father, and runs away. Upon finding Buddy’s runaway note, Michael rushes to his father, who is at work trying to complete a book project on Christmas Eve at the commandment of his boss. Michael walks into the meeting and tells his father that Buddy had run away, and asks for his help in finding his half-brother.

Walter now faces a decision; go after Buddy immediately or finish the project as demanded by his boss. Initially, Walter chooses to put off looking for his runaway son, to the chagrin and anger of Michael, and instead stay and satisfy his boss, who threatens to fire him if he doesn’t complete the project by the end of that day, Christmas Eve.

At that point Michael, himself feeling somewhat neglected by his father’s generally excessive focus on his work, rebels, accusing his father of “always thinking only of yourself.” (Earlier in the movie, Michael had accused his father of “caring only about money.”)

At this point, important questions are begged. Is the pursuit of money and success an end in itself, or a means to an end?  Was Walter really thinking “only of himself”—acting in his rational self-interest—by hierarchizing his job over his family? Or were his priorities screwed up, leading him down a personally self-destructive path?

Michael’s rebellion is like a slap in the face to Walter. He must decide what values are most important in his life; his job or his sons. But Walter’s dilemma does not involve the choice implied in this scene; to choose between his family or the pursuit of money. The actual choice is; his family or his stressful job working for a jerk boss. This is the choice Walter faces. He is on the spot between his particular job and his sons, and must now decide what his most important values are—the most selfish choice he’s ever had to make.

Walter chooses his family, thus losing his job. It’s the “right” choice, because he has put concern for others above selfishness. But, did he? Is it a choice between selflessness and selfishness? The choice Walter ultimately makes point to some important life lessons, albeit perhaps not the lessons intended by the movie’s producers. The obvious message one is supposed to draw from the movie is that when faced with the choice between selfless concern for others or the selfish pursuit of money—between the spiritual and the material—we must choose the former, which allegedly embodies the “Christmas Spirit.”

By forsaking his job for his family, Walter supposedly made the correct, selfless choice. But was it really selfless? Are spiritual values the embodiment of selflessness, and the material the embodiment of selfishness? This narrative applied to the moral dilemma Walter faces is rooted in a false premise; an alleged dichotomy between your mind and your body; between the spiritual and the material. Interestingly, whatever the producers’ intentions, the movie itself refutes this false narrative and premise. There is no such choice or dichotomy. The moral choice is between selflessness and selfishness. But not in the way seemingly meant in the movie, or as almost certainly taken by most viewers.

The most important lessons (or moral messages) that I drew from this heart-warming movie are not explicitly drawn out and demonstrated to the viewer. But the lessons are there, nonetheless. The movie doesn’t explicitly answer the questions posed above. But the implicit answers embedded in Walter’s choices say something important about money and values. Money is a means to serving one’s happiness and spiritual well-being, not an end in itself. One must not pursue money, whatever the cost. Indeed, to pursue money at all costs is not only not selfish. It is self-destructive. And one does not have to. The pursuit money and success and to pursue love and the nurture of family are both important, selfish values. Human beings are a unified whole of mind and body. There is no conflict there. To achieve a flourishing life, one must integrate one’s values—all of them, spiritual and material—into a proper hierarchy, and act accordingly.

Yes, Walter gives up his crappy job for his family. Keeping it for so long at the expense of his family life was very unselfish; meaning, not in his rational self-interest, as he comes to learn. But he doesn’t choose his family at the expense of the pursuit of money. In the end, Walter achieves both material, money-making business success—he starts his own publishing company with a successful book launch—and a good family life, sacrificing neither to the other. His ultimate choices and motives are thoroughly, and properly, selfish. Therein lies the lesson of Elf: Both spiritual and material values are crucial to a flourishing life. On the issue of the spiritual vs. the material, it’s not either-or. But you must integrate and hierarchize your values rationally, and choose wisely—i.e., long term—because you can have neither spiritual nor material flourishing without the other.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Society’s ‘Lottery Winners’ and ‘Give Back’ vs. Win-Win

In May 2015, President Obama said this to a panel on poverty at Georgetown University:


The top 25 hedge fund managers made more than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country. So, when I say that, I’m not saying that because I dislike hedge fund managers, or I think they are evil, I’m saying that you’re paying a lower [tax] rate than a lot of folks who are making $300,000 a year. You pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use in your family will ever be able to use.


There’s a fairness issue involved here. And by the way, if we were able to close that loophole, I could now invest in early childhood education to make a difference. That’s where the rubber hits the road. That’s … where the question of compassion and ‘I’m my brother’s keeper’ comes into play. And if we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to just make that modest investment, then really this conversation [on poverty] is for show.


Though Obama singled out hedge fund managers, his remark about “society’s lottery winners” clearly was meant to apply to successful achievers generally. It’s a logical followup to his “you didn’t build that” worldview.


In rebuttal, Forbes’s Rich Karlgaard has a nice column titled Society’s Lottery Winners. I recommend it, with one caveat. Early on, Karlgaard writes:


WORDS MATTER. Take the phrase “If we can’t ask from society’s winners to make [an] investment. … ” It’s a familiar plea from preachers and fundraisers, a particularly American approach. The U.S., happily, is a country that mints many winners who then traditionally give lots of money to charities, churches, schools and nonprofits.


Now change this plea by the addition of a single word: “If we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to make [an] investment. …” Hmm–it has an altogether different ring to it, no? That one word, “lottery,” changes the entire meaning. A good-hearted plea to society’s successful to heed their better angels and give something back becomes, by inserting “lottery,” sarcastic and cutting.


I left these comments:


“A good-hearted plea to society’s successful to heed their better angels and give something back becomes, by inserting ‘lottery,’ sarcastic and cutting.”


But what does “give something back” imply? It implies that the successful got something they didn’t earn or deserve, and so have a duty to give it back.


But as Karlgaard makes plain throughout this article, successful people make their money by “meeting market needs”: i.e., by creating economic value in exchange for the money they receive from consumers who willingly buy that value. But the successful are not the only winners. Those who receive the values the successful create are also winners. I’m composing this comment on a Dell computer. Michael Dell wins, but so do I. It’s not just “win.” It’s win-win. Highly successful people, like anyone on any level who works for money, give value for value—except that the wealthy create a lot more value for a lot more people. Hence, their fortunes. I would argue that the economic value the successful give far exceeds their fortunes in most cases. How do the cumulative benefits enjoyed by Google’s millions of users and thousands of employees stack up against the monetary fortunes of [Larry] Page and [Sergey] Brin, however many $billions they may be worth? The relationship of society’s most successful achievers to society in general is not just win-win: It’s arguably win-WIN.


Political “entrepreneurs” who get rich by government favor rather than market trade aside, successful people have nothing to “give back,” because they already gave plenty in the process of becoming “society’s winners.” “Give something back” is a terrible way to counter Obama’s morally obscene derogation of success and achievement. The use of that phrase only validates Obama’s premise, because substituting “give back” for “lottery” merely says the same thing in a different way. The generosity of the wealthy is laudable, but not because they have anything to give back. The use of the term “give something back” in this article mars an otherwise powerful rebuttal to Obama.


------------------------------------


One more point needs to be addressed regarding two above comments; one by Obama, and one by Karlgaard. Obama said:


There’s a fairness issue involved here. And by the way, if we were able to close that loophole, I could now invest in early childhood education to make a difference. That’s where the rubber hits the road. That’s … where the question of compassion and ‘I’m my brother’s keeper’ comes into play. [emphasis added]


Obama is clearly playing the altruism card. How does Karlgaard respond? Less Obama’s “lottery” insertion, Karlgaard concedes that such calls amount to “A good-hearted plea to society’s successful to heed their better angels and give something back . . .” [emphasis added]


This concession to altruism by Karlgaard amounts to, “‘Giving back’—giving away your earnings to those who didn’t earn it—is morally superior to creating wealth,” if creating wealth is given any moral credit at all. By conceding Obama’s altruist premises, Karlgaard concedes the moral high ground to Obama. Once Karlgaard concedes the moral high ground, quibbling over Obama’s “lottery” terminology is inconsequential by comparison.


This is another example of why defending free market capitalism requires challenging altruism. Capitalism, with its emphasis on individual rights to life, property, and the pursuit of personal happiness, doesn’t jive with “I’m my brother’s keeper.”


Related Reading:







How You Build That

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Suggested Philanthropic Goal for Mark Zuckerberg: First, Promote Individual Liberty

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan announced that they will dedicate 99% of their roughly $45 billion fortune toward philanthropy during their lifetimes. Interestingly, their philanthropic fund, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), will not be your typical charitable foundation. CZI will be organized as a for-profit LLC (limited liability corporation). While this structure will cost the Zuckerbergs some tax advantages, it will free them from a labyrinth of government regulations that come with tax-free status, allowing for many more options for CZI’s philanthropy. For example, besides turning a profit, the Zuckerbergs will be freer to pursue political activism on behalf of their values. As Suzanne Woolley observes for BloombergBusiness:


It seems clear the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will put money to work in politics. Facebook, in its official description of its founder's new LLC, noted that "making private investments and participating in policy debates" will be part of the mission. In a public letter Zuckerberg wrote to his newborn daughter, Max, he likewise emphasized an appetite for pushing a policy agenda: "We must participate in policy and advocacy to shape debates." If the charitable venture had been set up as a traditional tax-exempt foundation—what is called a 501(c)(3)— it wouldn't have freedom to lobby lawmakers or engage in other political activities. The Internal Revenue Service prohibits tax-exempt groups from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."


Unfortunately, Zuckerberg’s list of the values his initiative will seek to advance apparently doesn’t include man’s most important value, a value without which he’d have nothing to give away. As Alex Epstein observes at Forbes, “Mark Zuckerberg used 2,234 words to describe the things he values most in the world. None of those words was ‘freedom.’”


This is very disturbing, coming from one of the greatest capitalist champions of all time. In his letter to his daughter, Zuckerberg lays out his philosophy. But it’s hard to make heads or tails out of it. On the one hand, Zuckerberg tends toward collectivism at times. For example, he says “The only way to achieve our full potential is to channel the talents, ideas and contributions of every person in the world”. Sounds like central planning. Could Zuckerberg have built Facebook if his talents and ideas were “channeled” by some outside authority, rather than the free choices of himself and his customers? On the other hand, Zuckerberg advocates “personalized learning,” observing negatively that “Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs.” Sounds individualistic.


But collectivism and individualism are polar opposites, and so are the political ramifications of each. Collectivism leads to enslavement. Individualism leads to freedom and individual rights. So, which is it, Zuckerberg?


Zuckerberg speaks optimistically about opportunity for all, while failing to credit the only social condition that can truly provide it; freedom; that is, the individual rights to the freedom to act on one’s reasoning judgement; to work, trade with others, take risks, innovate, and keep what you have earned, without forcible, aggressive interference by others people, including people in their capacity as government officials. Freedom means no double standard regarding private citizens vs. government officials.


The biggest threat to freedom—the only threat, really—is a government that not only fails to protect rights but actively violates rights. So I offer—without meaning to disparage Zuckerberg’s stated values—this hope: that the Zuckerbergs, despite failing to acknowledging freedom, will elevate the promotion of freedom and properly limited government to the top of their hierarchy of values. The best thing Zuckerberg can do to genuinely make the world a better place is to use his CZI lobbying dollars to advocate for free market reforms—individual rights, the rule of objective law, freedom of expression, association, and conscience, property rights, lower taxes, less economic regulations, free trade within and between all people of all countries, an end to cronyism, and a government that protects rights equally and at all times. These are the basic social conditions required for individual flourishing. These are the basic social conditions—even though not fully implemented—that allowed Zuckerberg to build his fortune; a fortune earned by creating immense value for hundreds of millions of willing consumers—myself, my wife, family and friends included. Without real liberty—individual liberty—none of the Zuckerberg’s values are attainable. Neither is human progress and flourishing of any kind.


One of the saddest and most distressing hallmarks of our age is how few capitalist billionaires, having built their fortunes on a foundation of freedom, actively promote freedom. It’s distressing to hear billionaires justify committing their fortunes to philanthropy on the grounds of “improving this world” while ignoring freedom, when no amount of giving can equal the improvements to people’s lives that the freedom to create the fortunes accomplished. These billionaires’ grovelling is not doing any favors for those billions of us whose lives are immensely better because of the selfish motivations that led to the profit-seeking companies these leading entrepreneurs built—especially if their giving promotes more political control of our lives (as is the goal of the U.N. 2015 Climate Change Conference in Paris). (I could think of only two prominent billionaires explicitly committed to promoting more freedom, Charles and David Koch, through their Freedom Partners Foundation and other activities. Thank you, Koch Brothers.)


If the Zuckerbergs really do want a better world, they should set a new standard for mega-fortune generosity: promote freedom ahead of giving so that more people can produce their way to prosperity and self-reliance—and pave the way for more Zuckerbergs—thus rendering billionaire philanthropy progressively less necessary. To do any less will be a sell-out that no amount of philanthropy and no “giving pledge” could ever atone for.


Related Reading:


The Guilt Pledge—Yaron Brook and Don Watkins


Capitalism and the Moral High Ground—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

The Link Between "Control, Power, or Socialism" and "What's Morally Right"

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Only Free Markets Can Fairly Determine Economic Success

A recent letter titled Economic status quo must change was published in the Asbury Park Press. (It also appeared in the print edition of the New Jersey Star-Ledger.) It is an interesting letter in that it exposes the soul and the ignorance of the anti-capitalist. The writer is Gary Faraci.


Faraci calls for a “cultural change” away from “the mantra that success is measured solely by maximizing stockholder value.” Instead, he says, “Economic success must be measured by maximizing all ‘stakeholders’ values. Stakeholders include the community, the employees, and the environment. Not just stockholders.” Faraci goes on:


Maximizing stockholder value by the continually driving costs out of the system allows companies to have workers living below the poverty line, which then results in the workers relying on the government for food stamps and health benefits. And this narrow pursuit of profits also allows businesses to neglect and ignore the detrimental effects they have on the community systems and infrastructure, and the environment. Unless the welfare of the community, the employees and the environment are balanced with the interests of the investors, any economic success will be short-lived. And only for those at the top. Long term economic survival depends upon liveable wages, disposable income, sound infrastructure, and a safe environment. Not just higher stock prices.


I left these comments:


Business creates the products our lives and flourishing depend on at a price people can afford, the remunerative jobs that enable us to buy the products we need and desire, and by extension the tax revenue that supports our schools and infrastructure. All of this starts with the entrepreneurs and investors who risk their capital rather than keep it “safe” in bank accounts or bonds. Investors (shareholders) are not guaranteed a return. For the company and thus the investors to profit, their business must attract and keep customers. To attract customers, the business must create ever-increasing value at ever-decreasing costs, which is achieved by investing in technologies that increase the productivity—and thus the earning power—of labor. To create that value, businesses must pay and treat employees in a way that attracts and holds a dedicated, motivated workforce. This is what it means to “maximize shareholder value”—the first moral responsibility of the CEO.  


As to the environment, human beings survive and thrive by turning the Earth’s raw materials into life-enhancing material goods, thus transforming a hostile, pristine natural environment into a safer, healthier human environment. By far the leader in this virtuous transformation of the environment is business. For that, we owe business a huge expression of thanks, not a demand for them to sacrifice their best interests.


This virtuous cycle requires a social system that harmonizes the interests of “all stakeholders.” That system is the “unknown ideal,” free market capitalism—the system of voluntary, peaceful coexistence through trade, backed up by limited, individual rights-protecting government. Any means of “harmonizing interests” other than voluntary cooperation is the means of a thug. Today we don’t have capitalism. We have a mixed economy—un-free markets bogged down with government controls. That’s what “the culture” needs to learn.


--


Faraci raises the question of how economic success is measured:


Businesses need to stop pursuing, governments need to stop legislating to, and educators need to stop teaching the mantra that success is measured solely by maximizing stockholder value. Economic success must be measured by maximizing all “stakeholders” values. Stakeholders include the community, the employees, and the environment. Not just stockholders.


Faraci implies that “economic success” is an arbitrary construct that can be redefined on a whim. But, in fact, economic success has an objective basis; the market. As Ayn Rand has observed, “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return.” It’s not enough to invest, work hard, and so on. On any level, from the janitor to the CEO, one’s economic success is measured by what others are willing to pay you.


But while an employee has only one consideration—the level of his compensation—the businessman has two concerns. Not only must he have people willing to pay him for his product; they must be willing to pay him more than it costs him to produce it. Faraci sees “Maximizing stockholder value by the continually driving costs out of the system . . .” as a vice. In fact, it is the greatest virtue of successful businesses. The “continually driving costs out of the system” is what creates mass markets of goods that not just the rich but the average person can afford. It is what lifts the general standard of living. The average person never had it as good as under businesses liberated by capitalism.


Faraci’s reference to “sound infrastructure” is puzzling. Business is the mainstay of the economy, and as such, generates—directly and indirectly—most of the taxes that fund the building and maintenance of our infrastructure. It’s true that our government-owned infrastructure is crumbling. But we all use it, not just business. I guess, given his anti-business bigotry, Faraci can’t help pinning the blame for every conceivable problem on business.


I’m not done with this letter. I’ll finish up with Faraci in my next post.


Related Reading:







To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?

Friday, October 10, 2014

Reducing Luck to its Proper Rank

Don Watkins recently posted an interview with author Brian Tracy at Voices for Reason. I particularly liked this statement from Tracy:


I have spoken and written on this subject extensively. There is no such thing as luck; there are only probabilities. The good news is that you can influence the probabilities on your behalf.


The harder you work, the luckier you get. The more you learn about your craft, the better you become, and the better results you get. The better you manage your time, the more productive you are and the better your results will be. Every one of these constructive actions increases the probabilities that you will be the right person, doing the right work, in the right place. As a result, doors will open for you and you will move ahead far faster than the average person who is passive, and who simply waits and hopes for things to get better.


Tracy, whom I had never heard of before reading Watkins’s interview, is an interesting person. You can read the interview here.


Related Reading:

Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame—Diana Hsieh