Trio and Friends

In which Francisco challenges Hank Rearden about why he built the John Galt line:

“Are you proud of the rail of the John Galt Line?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Because it's the best rail ever made.”
“Why did you make it?”
“In order to make money.”
“There were many easier ways to make money. Why did you choose the
hardest?”
“You said it in your speech at Taggart's wedding: in order to exchange my
best effort for the best effort of others.” (p. 419)

This is a very revealing moment, but it is not the only one like it. Hank Rearden has to take back his original statement, that he built the line in order to make money. He didn’t. He could have made more money in other ways. He built it to “exchange his best effort for the best effort of others.” He is not a pure capitalist, or else pure capitalism is not merely about making money.

Another instance of the same is when a government man comes and offers Rearden any sum of money to buy the rights to Rearden Metal:

"We are offering you a blank check on what is, as you realize, an unlimited account. What else can you want? Name your price."
"The sale of the rights to Rearden Metal is not open to discussion. If you have anything else to say, please say it and leave."
The man leaned back, looked at Rearden incredulously and asked, "What are you after?"
"I? What do you mean?"
"You're in business to make money, aren't you?"
"I am."
"You want to make as big a profit as possible, don't you?"
"I do."
"Then why do you want to struggle for years, squeezing out your gains in the form of pennies per ton—rather than accept a fortune for Rearden Metal? Why?"
"Because it's mine. Do you understand the word?"
...
"Would you tell me," the man asked, "just between us, it's only my personal curiosity—why are you doing this?"
Rearden answered quietly, "I'll tell you. You won't understand. You see, it's because Rearden Metal is good."

Again, Hank Rearden chooses to keep the rights to Rearden Metal instead of selling them for any amount of money he chooses. If he was only after money, he would have sold them. Either he is not a true capitalist, or capitalism is not really about making money.

Perhaps the morality in question is after earning money in a well-deserved way, not making money by any means whatever. But even here, Rearden's refusal is hard to understand. He produced Rearden Metal, and the Government are willing to pay him for the rights to it. Why not just sell?

Because for him there is a value higher than money: the satisfaction of seeing his product put to use and improving people's lives.

I keep meaning to reply to this one because I think you are on to something here. The others keep getting pinged and I forget where this one is. In any case I found it.

Because for him there is a value higher than money: the satisfaction of seeing his product put to use and improving people's lives.

YES! I think capitalists get backed into the corner of "making money is not bad" because it's so easy to be jealous of successful people and they then have everyone with their hand out asking for money as though it is free for them. He doesn't even have a great reason why he is doing what he is doing. I think it is that he has found something he is good at, that people want, that it's challenging, and he really wants to do it. It is the alignment of the stars. Making money is part of it, it is the proof, so to speak, that what he is doing is good and helpful to people. He is not just putting on a show, in fact he is reviled for it, but he makes money. That is all the proof he needs. What people really think, the people who really matter, the people who deal in reality and not fantasy, they will pay him for what he can do. In that regard, making money is the evidence that you have made something good. Not making money is evidence of your failure. He has been examined by God and not been found wanting (as far as the new rail line delivered on time and now running).

I think there is more to it than making money but I do like the speech on making money. I'll get to it again eventually.

I think this is really, crucially important, because I think that a difference begins to widen between what it takes to "make money" and what it takes to produce things that really benefit the world and other people.

But before I explain this different, I'm not sure it's quite good enough to say that something is good if people want it - in other words, to use people's wants as a measure of the value of something. People may want all kinds of things that are really bad for them and mess up their lives. As a businessman, is it morally neutral what kind of thing I offer to them?

• For example, is it morally neutral for me to run a brothel? I'm providing something that people want. They pay me for it. All parties have mutually and freely consented to the transaction. In fact, is it more than morally neutral - is it laudable, because I'm using my business skills to provide a service that people want?

I was going to list many more examples but I'll keep it to this extreme one and then we'll deal with the others at a later date.

For example, is it morally neutral for me to run a brothel? I'm providing something that people want. They pay me for it. All parties have mutually and freely consented to the transaction. In fact, is it more than morally neutral - is it laudable, because I'm using my business skills to provide a service that people want?

No. This is not morally neutral. Nor is it laudable in my personal estimation.

That being said, it is also not morally laudable to coercively enforce morality. That was a strong driving factor for the "separation of church and state" in America. We do not want some government bureaucracy deciding for us what is right and what is not and forcing us to do or not do things because someone in power thinks they are or are not moral. That should be left up to us as much as possible. As such, I think running a brothel should be legal, as much as I don't like the idea. Only Fans is basically a brothel. Maybe it takes running such experiments before we recognize that our traditional morality is not so foolish and backward.

I've responded to this point in this thread.