It is possible.....this may sound a bit snobby ...

But here is a perfect example of why rich people are wasting their time trying to assist working class people, and why you should stick to your own kind or else..ummmmm..."transactional" relationships, and not get carried away by silly irrationality...(like 'love').

I know this took place over a century ago, but take it from me that working class people have not improved much...so...however tempting, however 'real' the illusion may seem...gosh...forget it....("East is east.." as Kipling put it)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"What the fuck is an "employer"??? "

BTW, Michael, you do realise that good beer is an aid to rational thought. The better the beer ... ;^)

[That link to the third worst sacrifice is exceptional; thanks for posting.]

"...nothing would give me greater pleasure than for someone to read my original post, tell their employer they are quitting, in order to pursue a long held dream..."

What the fuck is an "employer"??? ;) 

www.michaelnewberry.com

I liked your post Elijah.

Perhaps I can make a small contribution on this thread. One point taken for granted here is the idea that everyone has dreams. I am not sure of that. I know some people who have only an incredibly foggy notion of a dream, and the concept dissipates as soon as they seriously think about it.

Another negative point,  there is the problem that if you act on a dream, it might not come about. I know a few people who would prefer ignorant bliss than making the attempt at a dream--if they never attempt their dream, than they don't have to deal with failure.

A negative effect of people who do not act on their dreams is that they usually downplay the achievements and struggles of people who do.

One qualifier I have for this post is that I just drank an inordinately potent beer,  La Fin Du Monde, Belgium, 9% alcohol content. That detail was for Peter's benefit. I find when I drink strong beer, I can think myself too clever.

Michael 

www.michaelnewberry.com

"..Following your dreams requires hard work and dedication to your goal..."

That is certainly true, Peter! ha ha..and especially when everyone else is telling you to do the opposite in case it all goes tits up.

"...Working hard on the work that is one's central purpose in life is not a sacrifice, by the way, it's a pleasure. Hard work never hurt anyone -- just as long as it's hard work on work that one loves doing.."

Oh yes, and I am living proof of this, spending most of my time engaging in a great passion to earn a quid.

It is not the hard work, but the hard work doing things not enjoyed, which bewilders me, with a lot of chaps settling for something - anything- rather than doing what they want to.

Perhaps I should point out this thread was intended to be very positive...nothing would give me greater pleasure than for someone to read my original post, tell their employer they are quitting, in order to pursue a long held dream of ------ [whatever] ...as I have been known to 'inspire' and encourage the occasional person.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

... if someone said "I have always wanted to visit the Rockies" I would ask them why they are not there at the moment and invariably their response would be along the lines of "ha, if only I could, but I have to pay the gas bill"."

I agree that people shouldn't give up their dreams for a mess of pottage, but you should recognise that your respondents may not necessarily mean by the remark above what you think they mean by it.

They may mean by it that they are following the central purpose of their life, they are not making what Burgess Laughlin calls the "third worst sacrifice," and that at present it's not yet paying off -- at least, not in financial terms -- or requires all the hours one has to make it work. In other words, one is working hard doing something one loves, and saying "I'm working to pay the gas bill,' is short-hand for all that.

Following your dreams requires hard work and dedication to your goal. Working hard on the work that is one's central purpose in life is not a sacrifice, by the way, it's a pleasure. Hard work never hurt anyone -- just as long as it's hard work on work that one loves doing.

While it may sometimes look to others as if they are just working to pay the gas bill, and they may certainly say as a metaphor that that's what they're doing when asked, they're actually working on their dream already -- and if they do eventually get to the Rockies as a result, it will be under their own steam, on their own terms, and knowing that their hard work in pursuit of their dream has paid off.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

PS: Yes, Joe, it is now compulsory in the States (and in most countries) to be licensed in order to call oneself an architect - and there have been AIA members who've called Frank Lloyd Wright's Gold Medal to be withdrawn, since he was never a "qualified" architect.

As I said on the badge thread, Rosie joined solopassion for the sole reason of a personal attack on me and has clearly not read (and certainly not understood) any point being made.

Joe has summed things up splendidly! well done! ...(I should point out I was not advocating someone sleeping on a friend's couch and bludging off them, obviously a chap would chip in, but yes, perhaps was not entirely clear).

The point is that people should follow dreams and ambitions rather than wasting time working to live.

I do consider certain occupations to be undignified...and so what?

As for humility and Ghandi...well...if it is all the same with Rosie, I shall not take the advice of a communist and paedophile...(next she will suggest we follow the teachings of Mohammad!)

One further point, Joe, and you would be understandably unaware of this, I am actually cutting back on business activities as I have started to find certain things a bit tiresome; and I want to spend more time on libertarian matters and by November I very much doubt profitmaking undertakings will be more than a hobbyist activity.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

 The one thing I think is most important about what Eli is trying to say is this:

 History remembers the risktakers, not the ones who "did what they were told." The current business world (not the capitalist system itself) rewards the obedient with baubles, but the risktakers make their own rewards. THAT is the aristocracy of Objectivism.

I started to write this on the "badge" thread, but it's relevant here as well, moreso: 

Eli never talks about this when he denigrates labor, but Rand did. One can conceivably work an eight hour day in our society and STILL find time for artistic pursuits, leisure, etc. There is talk of people being slaves to the 9 to 5 world, but ours has opened up a world of possibility. 

But there seems to be a paradox in our system, and capitalism is the side that gets the blame. But should it? What happens is that people have a world of opportunity.

The capitalism we have is NOT the ideal Rand wrote of, and there's something intrinsic to the current mindset that tells the people that they have to play the game. It keeps people locked into the mindset of a child; get a job with a good company, buy a house, and car, and all the trappings. Dedicate your life to the company and they will take care of you. And above all, DON'T TAKE RISKS. Be conservative. Be loyal to the company. Don't be a hero. Pay your bills on time. Don't be a rebel. I don't think it needs to be said that of course, one SHOULD be responsible for chosen obligations like credit card debt. But that said, the overall message is that you belong to the system, the system does not work for you. That is why the average person is given recipes for success that clash with the Objectivist literature's heroes like Nat Taggart, because they write their own rules. Or even Wynand, who did not accept his employers as parents, fearlessly offering suggestions only to be told "that's not how we do it here." His employers, however, expected him to be the child, and they the all-knowing parent. It's telling that Rand depicted this aristocratic hero in his youth as a rebel at work already, when so many adults are still in the child mindset.

 And some will not be successful. If one strikes out, yet fails, they can still earn a living working for others, yet still do so on their own terms. But when you start with nothing, you have nothing to lose, and can take risks to get ahead. There is no fear of losing everything if you have nothing but your own wits and intelligence.

But an odd thing happens when someone DOES make some level of success: the risks are now gambles. One becomes attached to the material gains, that they are afraid to lose them. So they become conservative, cautious, afraid, at the expense of their integrity. The maverick with the rebel spirit who creates his own way suddenly starts playing "by the rules," appealing to all markets, afraid to lose a sale. The customer becomes infallible, "always right." 

 PROFITS ABOVE ALL ELSE.

THIS, ELI, is the problem with your quote. Without context or qualification, that quote could be the motta of those who strive to pay the gas bill, or the man who starts his own business on his own terms now has to bow to the will of others in fear of losing money and his millions for being "difficult." Could you imagine Howard Roark, once a young visionary, now building classical facades because he is now a success with an empire to maintain, and so afraid of losing it that it no longer matters what's right, as long as he pays for that empire's gas bill? THAT was the point of Peter Keating and Gail Wynand.

 Anyway, the point is that capitalism gets the blame, because it's been too long associated with unlimited greed, etc. We HAVE to remember Rand's usage of the term, associating it with laissez faire, free trade. It was not profit above all else...or rather, it was, if you include personal, spiritual profit. You can make a million dollars, but it's worthless if the price is your independence, which is priceless. Capitalism is not to blame for the entreprenuer gripped by fear of failure. It's the opposite of capitalism: the fear of what your friends and colleagues and customers will say if you don't give in to any customer who makes a demand. It's selflessness that makes a person accept profits over his own vision.

 Risk is always a factor, capitalism is not Utopian. Socialism is, while lying to it's adherents that there is no risk in a communal mindset. 

You will find few here that regard humility as a virtue.

Wm

 I don't think Eli expresses himself as clearly as he could, and mixes it up with polemic, but there is something in what he's saying that is all too true, once teased out: 

Are you living to work or working to live?  

"But for goodness sake, do not waste it [one's life] engaging in undignified,utterly pointless activities to earn money to pay the gas bill."

 Rosie, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment with this sentence. Rand wrote that teleology in philosophy was wrong, but in art, it's necessary. And, if art is the technology of the soul, then, no matter what they say about "life being what happens when you make other plans," life DOES require some kind of long-range plan. So what Eli says here does make some sense. Are you paying the gas bill to keep yourself warm in order to survive in order to follow your plan, or are you simply getting up, going to work at a job you hate, simply to pay that gas bill, and in general be in thrall to others because you're afraid to be homeless and cold? If that's the case, then YES, working to pay the gas bill IS undignified and pointless. 

 " ...an aristocrat is an aristocrat is an aristocrat ...even when sleeping on a friend's sofa in a state of penury."

 There is an saying I've seen on line that I like: "Mind of an aristocrat, budget of a tramp."  

Joe, there is no hostility from my end...

But all I was querying is why people waste their lives doing strange activities.

I am certainly not suggesting some sort of 'formula for success'; but rather, if someone said "I have always wanted to visit the Rockies" I would ask them why they are not there at the moment and invariably their response would be along the lines of "ha, if only I could, but I have to pay the gas bill".

All I am saying is that I consider such self denial over something so trivial to be very strange and sad.

Oh, and Joe ...an aristocrat is an aristocrat is an aristocrat ...even when sleeping on a friend's sofa in a state of penury.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

 Again, with the hostility aside, I'd like to bring up a related issue. A thread like this gives credence to Peikoff's claims about web forums being a haven for self-proclaimed gurus and authorities. Without attacking Eli, I think it's fair...and necessary...for a reader to ask questions of anyone who makes claims of this kind. Even Rand said not to take her for granted. Caveat Emptor..."let the buyer beware."

 [Side note to Lindsay: on THAT topic...the old SOLO site required submission of articles to be reviewed for quality control before being posted. With the blog system now in place, do you think this has hurt or harmed the quality of the forum?] 

 On that note, this brings us to a larger issue. Here we have a case of someone via an Objectivist/Libertarian forum offering his formulas and opinions for success. I think this hits a nerve in a lot of us because we do want success. But putting aside Eli's particular formulas and ideas...there's a famine of Objectivist-oriented material out there for entrepreneurial success. There is, however, a feast of books and formulas offered by the prevailing system. Some of these are sound, but generalized, the sound ones are the ones that offer principles over "recipes" or get-rich-quick schemes. Then there are the ones that are good as far as the current system goes, like Suze Orman, who tell you how to work within the present system without questioning things like fiat currency versus a gold standard. They will tell you how to best invest your money for tax benefits, etc., without questioning the taxes or the government. 

 Then there are the guides on how to get along in the business world, the MBA manuals, etc. Most of these are psychological, about how to manipulate, etc., and often "Machiavellian." And they are at odds with the Objectivist ethics. From MBA classes to "advice" columns online, we're told the importance of compromise, how to suck up to the boss, how to not be too "ambitious" for fear of antagonizing co-workers, to...well, you know the rest. Of course, a lot of this is a civilized facade to cover the Machiavellian powerplays and backroom backstabbing. 

 I would offer up someone like Jennifer Ianollo as an model of how to succeed in business without following the models of our current system. But it should be noted that the nature of her business is small-scale enough for her to keep control. If she ran a restaurant, however, she would be subject to state and federal regulations, labor regulations, health regulations, and, more recently, regulations about fats and foi grass and smoking. She would be told to play the political game, in turn...Suze Orman would tell her how to invest for tax benefits, but Suze would NEVER tell her to buck the system! (I would love to hear her views on this, if you've the time, Jen. )

 The point? As Objectivists and/or Libertarians, we are on our own out there. There are no recipes or secret formulas in a world of push-and-pull. Beyond the basics of supply and demand, etc., it's an ever-changing environment that's polluted by Keynes and his philosophy that "in the long run, we're all dead."  

In popular usage, the term "career" is applied only to the more ambitious types of work; but, in fact, it applies to all work: it denotes a man’s attitude toward his work.

The difference between a career-man and a job-holder is as follows: a career-man regards his work as constant progress, as a constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. A job-holder regards his work as a punishment imposed on him by the incomprehensible malevolence of reality or of society, which, somehow, does not let him exist without effort; so his policy is to go through the least amount of motions demanded of him by somebody and to stay put in any job or drift off to another, wherever chance, circumstances or relatives might happen to push him.

In this sense, a man of limited ability who rises by his own purposeful effort from unskilled laborer to shop-foreman, is a career-man in the proper, ethical meaning of the word—while an intelligent man who stagnates in the role of a company president, using one-tenth of his potential ability, is a mere job-holder. And so is a parasite posturing in a job too big for his ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability that is ethically relevant in this issue, but the full, purposeful use of his ability.

- Ayn Rand, From My 'Future File'

Rand considered that productive achievement is man's noblest activity. What would she have thought of a man who, by his own advertisement, creates nothing?

I'm willing to put aside the animosity for a moment to discuss this, because there are interesting questions and issues here. I'm not posting to argue with Eli, though I am willing to give him a chance to explain his reasoning. But I think these are questions that should be asked by anyone interested in this matter. 

 Now THIS is an interesting essay. I think this is this the key to the controversy here. It raised so many questions that I can't begin to make a clear-cut argument in one post, nor do I have the time. So this is off-the-cuff, to get it started.

 I can see a Roarkian spirit; I also see contradictions and an odd sense of economics: imagine if everyone stopped worrying about paying the gas bill. Or relying upon friends to pay THEIR gas bill while someone else pursued a dream. SOMEONE'S got to pay it, else the gas company goes broke, and we go back to fire in the forests. ;) 

 It's also telling that a single gay man is writing this, imagine a father with a family following this advice. (But, to play "devil's advocate," look at the "true story" of THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS.) 

  "What is even more bizarre are the myriad of undignified and humiliating occupations these chaps will undertake in order to earn the money for the gas bill such as being a waiter, or dustman, or schoolmaster, or answering a telephone in a call centre, or working in a factory, or cleaning lavatories and so on."

 And yet, most of economy is based on a division of labor. How would our current system function without people willing to do these things? And what about the people who take the jobs to provide the gas to the would-be achiever?

 Back to the Roarkian spirit; he was, at times, unable to pay his rent, and went to burning paper for fire because...he couldn't pay the gas bill. So far, this rings in accordance to the essay. But what did Roark do afterwards? Took an "undignified" job in a rock quarry as a day laborer. Hmmm...

 I will submit the possibility that what's presented in the essay is very 19th century, the time of "Nat Taggart," where the suggestions may have made more sense. In the current situation of regulation and control, could a Nat Taggart, or, for real life examples, a Ben Franklin run away from home, start a printing press, and become a diplomat? Could Howard Roark have become a successful architect? Considering that, in the course of the FOUNTAINHEAD, there was talk of making it mandatory for architects to be members of the AIA, which I bet is now reality, today, he'd never escape the rock quarry. 

 And I'm also interested to hear from Elijah if there is a "Jewish" component to his reasoning. What I'm picking up from the composite of his posts is the Jewish tradition of trading as a survival trait. Jews in Europe were often not allowed to be landowners, and were on the move a lot. It's hard to be "creators" when you're not allowed to settle down. But they were allowed to be traders, which was often looked down upon as "lowly." It's something Hitler picked up on and attacked, and what Rand picked up on, and defended. But what I'm sensing is an overidentification with the trader side of things at the expense of the creator, or employee who trades his time for money by providing a service. (Though Eli and I have agreed in the past that the "proper" way for an employee to see himself is not as a child who sees the employer as a parent, but as a client and himself as a self-employed service provider.)

 Which brings me to my final point (but not the final point, this is inexhaustable): Rand's suggestion in ATLAS that men on strike take the lowest positions they can find...because the alternative for men like Reardon is to accept the premises of the statists and operate as criminals. Men who DO take risks to bring new companies and inventions to life are consumed, no good deed goes unpunished.  

"...the only reason a 'strike' or gulch has never taken place is because so many chaps are sucking on the tit of working class values and are petrified at not paying the gas bill."

 Well, Eli, we agree on THAT. But I'd add another dimension to that: that too many people are in gilded cages, afraid to lose their bribes. Some people have the opposite problem: if they buck the system, they lose all the things society has given them, the so-called luxuries. The Keatings who've sold their souls, who thing that the material goods make the man, without regards to how they got them or who created them. Would the "rich" be willing to give up their goods in the name of liberty and freedom? In ATLAS, the creators did, because they could create it again. What about those who relied on others to create? That's when we see the true value of creators versus owners. And, it's a bit hard to be "aristocratic" when sleeping on a friend's couch, or when you can't pay the gas bill...