I mean, if you could immediately have all the money/resources you needed to do whatever you wanted, but what you did had to be selfless/primarily benefit others, what would it be?
I guess I thought of this while I was walking between classes earlier today. I kinda had this idea of making a group/company that would be a bit like the Cerberus group from Mass Effect 2. However, the similarity would primarily be structural and methodological. It's objective would be to incentivize and assist in the promotion/development of self-reliance and individuality through whatever (directly) non-violent means possible. It would have different groups.
-Education group: This group would focus on education, lobbying to loosen up the regulations on schooling where possible, directly manipulating the schools themselves where impossible (bribing officials to fire incompetent administrators/teachers, paying incompetent teachers/administrators to retire directly if the former doesn't work, giving 'gifts' to good schools low on funding once the incompetent employees are removed, providing libertarian/anarcho-capitalist literature to students, etc.)
-Militia group: This group would focus on the development of private militias, private defense companies, etc. It would start by working to make military-grade weapons/training available to private individuals at either no or competitive costs (depending on the success in obtaining funds). This would be especially focused in poorer, more totalitarian countries, but efforts would be made to develop the ability of the private citizen to defend themselves and their property in the developed countries as well. Where possible, they would also lobby to reduce/eliminate restrictions on weapons. If the opportunity presented itself in a country such as Somalia or another country, this group would also provide seed money for potential private defense companies.
Political group: This group would focus on assisting more individual-oriented political groups in the target countries, such as the libertarian party in the USA, and would provide lobbying and funding support for them in addition to disincentivizing the competition. The former would be primarily accomplished through the provision of 'anonymous donations' to grassroots activist groups, certain political candidates/campaigns, etc. The latter would be accomplished by the provision of funding to competent sympathetic media outlets (such as John Stossel, maybe working to push Fox News into becoming more libertarian than conservative by paying anchors, pundits, and reporters to retire from the business and giving financial incentive to the executives in charge of the company to hire more individual-minded replacements), paying certain groups or individuals to exit the political arena wherever possible, and so forth.
More groups may be added later, but each group would have the following two sub-groups in some way/shape/form.
Profit group: This group would be focused primarily on generating revenue for its respective organization, as very few (if any) of these groups have the potential to generate profit on their own. Operations would include general investment and income generation by whatever non-violent means necessary (perhaps by starting a few legitimate front companies and diverting a share of profits to the other activities).
Technology group: This group would focus on investing or directly participating in the development of research to further the goals of the other sectors (such as the technology to develop weapons and military-grade equipment in the militia group).
Combat group: Seeing as how some of the activities of the above groups may be seen as illegal by the target countries, the use of force may be necessary to protect the safety of operatives and assets, especially in the more totalitarian countries.
These groups would operate primarily in secret, with little to no central management among them (except in the sub-groups). The idea would be to set up each group separately with the appropriate objectives and rules (The non-aggression principle will be the basis for the rules of the organizations, with checks and balances designed within them to keep it that way), and then allow them to operate independently, unaware of the existence of the other groups. This would allow greater mobility, as well as a reduced chance for uncovering the various operations. If there were any central group, it would indirectly monitor the status of the various companies only to verify that the objectives were being pursued/met and if the group still existed. If neither condition was met, the central group would start another group to either supplement or replace the original.
Anyway, I just thought I'd type that up and ask what people thought of that. It is, of course, more of an idealistic fantasy than a real plan, but I'd certainly be willing to give it a try if I had the combined business sense, incomes, and resources of the 100 richest C.E.O.s and investors in the world. =P