Activism Discussion: Ayn Rand On Money

Ayn Rand On Money
Posts: 42

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Borked Pseudo Mailed
2009-05-01 00:55:10 EST
>From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:

Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil\ufffdand he's the typical product of money."

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor\ufffd your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions\ufffdand you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns\ufffdor dollars. Take your choice\ufffdthere is no other\ufffdand your time is running out."


Dan Clore
2009-05-02 04:26:57 EST
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
>
> Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> money is the root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."

Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.

> Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
> Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
>
> "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
> tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
> and men able to produce them.

Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.

> Money is the material shape of the
> principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
> trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
> moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
> take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
> produce. Is this what you consider evil?
>
> "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
> the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
> effort of others.

Once again, no natural goods for sale.

And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since
that would be eeeeevil.

> It is not the moochers or the looters who give
> value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
> can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
> will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
> have been gold,

I guess the alchemists better get to work--

> are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of
> the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
> somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
> on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> consider evil?
>
> "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
> electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
> muscular effort of unthinking brutes.

On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
(I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
workers.)

> Try to grow a seed of wheat
> without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
> the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
> physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
> the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
> earth.

Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.

> "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
> you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
> which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
> Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no
> other—and your time is running out."

This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1)
one of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?

At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which
he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
influence people, as well.

I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal
with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with
family, friends, lovers, etc.

Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
Begins with Ayn Rand:

http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

2009-05-03 00:44:12 EST
On May 2, 4:26 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
>
> > Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> > made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> > money is the root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."
>
> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
> is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
> > Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
> > Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
>
> > "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> > d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
> > tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
> > and men able to produce them.
>
> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
> ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.

Well, but since they THIINK they can, that's why the people with
actual non-zero economic brains built the DSP, Fiber Optics, Cell
Phones,
Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, All-In-One Printers,
Microcomputers,
Optical Computers, C++, Distributed Processing, MP3, MPEG, CD,
DVD, HDTV,
GPS, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Holograms, USB, On-Line Publishing, On-
line Shopping,
AUVs, Cruise Missiles, Drones, Phalanx, Light Sticks, Compact
Flourescent Lighting,
Solar Energy, Biodiesel, Pv Cells, and Self-Replicating Machines,
rather than more
screwball Ayn Rand Fiction for them.







.



>
> > Money is the material shape of the
> > principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
> > trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
> > moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
> > take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
> > produce. Is this what you consider evil?
>
> > "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
> > the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
> > effort of others.
>
> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>
> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since
> that would be eeeeevil.
>
> > It is not the moochers or the looters who give
> > value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
> > can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
> > will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
> > have been gold,
>
> I guess the alchemists better get to work--
>
> > are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of
> > the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
> > somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
> > on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> > consider evil?
>
> > "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
> > electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
> > muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
>
> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
> (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
> workers.)
>
> > Try to grow a seed of wheat
> > without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
> > the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
> > physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
> > the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
> > earth.
>
> Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
> having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.
>
> > "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
> > you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
> > which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
> > Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no
> > other—and your time is running out."
>
> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
> there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
> affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1)
> one of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?
>
> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which
> he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
> influence people, as well.
>
> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal
> with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with
> family, friends, lovers, etc.
>
> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
> Begins with Ayn Rand:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"


Anarcissie
2009-05-03 11:26:03 EST
In article <762efeF1arcm9U1@mid.individual.net>,
Dan Clore <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
> >
> > Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> > made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> > money is the root of all evil\ufffdand he's the typical product of money."
>
> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
> is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.

In lower-middle-brow and vulgar culture, though, it
_is_ "Money is the root of all evil." But does the
utterance of this tedious pop banality deserve the
punishment of an equally banal, extended pontification
devoid of fact or logic, which neglects even to correct
the error but actually takes it seriously?

In reference to Tuccille, Rand's personal cult has
become a source of much gossip and humor. Imagine
having to live with this deadly gas day in and day out,
though. One has to pity the poor wretches.


> > Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
> > Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
> >
> > "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> > d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
> > tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
> > and men able to produce them.
>
> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
> ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
>
> > Money is the material shape of the
> > principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
> > trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
> > moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
> > take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
> > produce. Is this what you consider evil?
> >
> > "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
> > the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
> > effort of others.
>
> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>
> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since
> that would be eeeeevil.
>
> > It is not the moochers or the looters who give
> > value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
> > can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
> > will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
> > have been gold,
>
> I guess the alchemists better get to work--
>
> > are a token of honor\ufffd your claim upon the energy of
> > the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
> > somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
> > on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> > consider evil?
> >
> > "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
> > electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
> > muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
>
> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
> (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
> workers.)
>
> > Try to grow a seed of wheat
> > without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
> > the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
> > physical motions\ufffdand you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
> > the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
> > earth.
>
> Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
> having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.
>
> > "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
> > you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
> > which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
> > Blood, whips and guns\ufffdor dollars. Take your choice\ufffdthere is no
> > other\ufffdand your time is running out."
>
> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
> there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
> affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1)
> one of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?
>
> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which
> he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
> influence people, as well.
>
> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal
> with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with
> family, friends, lovers, etc.
>
> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
> Begins with Ayn Rand:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5

Econotron
2009-05-03 20:21:35 EST
"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:762efeF1arcm9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
>>
>> Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
>> made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
>> money is the root of all evil\ufffdand he's the typical product of money."
>
> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that is
> supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
That was obviously a figure of speech.
>
>> Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
>> Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
>>
>> "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
>> d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
>> tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
>> and men able to produce them.
>
> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims ownership
> of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
>
Once you claimed a piece of land, you produced it as a good.
>
>> Money is the material shape of the
>> principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
>> trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
>> moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
>> take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
>> produce. Is this what you consider evil?
>>
>> "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
>> the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
>> effort of others.
>
> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>
There is no such thing.
>
> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since that
> would be eeeeevil.
>
Hair splitting.
>
>> It is not the moochers or the looters who give
>> value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
>> can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
>> will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
>> have been gold,
>
> I guess the alchemists better get to work--
>
Actually, they are at work. Treasury and Federal Reserve.
>
>> are a token of honor\ufffd your claim upon the energy of
>> the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
>> somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
>> on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
>> consider evil?
>>
>> "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
>> electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
>> muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
>
> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
> (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
> workers.)
>
Robots could have done it. And do not ask who made robots :-)
>
>> Try to grow a seed of wheat
>> without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
>> the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
>> physical motions\ufffdand you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
>> the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
>> earth.
>
> Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
> having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.
>
It is a human, who is being addressed here. Since the plants do not have
mind, they do not feel inconvenience of unreliable food supply, and the
animals think that it is supposed to be that way.
>
>> "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
>> you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
>> which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
>> Blood, whips and guns\ufffdor dollars. Take your choice\ufffdthere is no
>> other\ufffdand your time is running out."
>
> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
> there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
> affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1) one
> of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?
>
> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which he
> called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
> influence people, as well.
>
> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal with
> one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with family,
> friends, lovers, etc.
>
She said "men", which leaves some room for heterosexual love :-)
>
> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
> Begins with Ayn Rand:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5
>
If this is nitpicking similar to yours, I shall skip.
e.



Michael Price
2009-05-04 00:49:10 EST
On May 2, 6:26 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
>
> > Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> > made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> > money is the root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."
>
> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
> is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.

And straight off the bat you're misinterpreting, Scudder may not
have
known his bible but Franciso did and addresses that point later.
>
> > Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
> > Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
>
> > "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> > d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
> > tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
> > and men able to produce them.
>
> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
> ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
>
And how does he gather natural goods or claim ownership of land?
Without
production there is no need for money and without a need for it it
would not
exist.

> > Money is the material shape of the
> > principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
> > trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
> > moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
> > take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
> > produce. Is this what you consider evil?
>
> > "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
> > the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
> > effort of others.
>
> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>
No goods made availible without effort for sale, there's a big
difference.

> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since
> that would be eeeeevil.
>
Where did you get that impression? In fact generousity (either
monetary
or non-monetary) is a defining characteristic of Randian heroes.

> > It is not the moochers or the looters who give
> > value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
> > can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
> > will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
> > have been gold,
>
> I guess the alchemists better get to work--

No yes the metalworkers.
>
> > are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of
> > the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
> > somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
> > on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> > consider evil?
>
> > "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
> > electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
> > muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
>
> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
> (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
> workers.)
>
And now we move into the bullshit slander part of the debate. The
implication
here is that the producers of a generator were not unthinking brutes,
otherwise
how would they have been able to produce a generator? You are too
smart to
have made this mistake accidentally, you're simply lying now.

> > Try to grow a seed of wheat
> > without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
> > the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
> > physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
> > the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
> > earth.
>
> Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
> having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.
>
And is there an example of a human being getting food without the
use of
a person's mind? Certainly not in modern society and still less in
hunter-gather
societies, where those who try to survive without thinking get real
thin real fast.

> > "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
> > you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
> > which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
> > Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no
> > other—and your time is running out."
>
> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
> there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
> affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1)
> one of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?
>
> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which
> he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
> influence people, as well.


There is no alternative for economic management, and you know it.
Money, i.e. productivity is in fact the source of love, because you
can't
love without virtue and you can't be virtuous without fundamentally
being
productive.
>
> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal
> with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with
> family, friends, lovers, etc.
>
Are these your most valuable relationships? Are they the ones that
keep you fed, healthy, informed, entertained, etc.? In fact we find
that many
nonmonetary relationships are toxic.

> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
> Begins with Ayn Rand:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"


Anarcissie
2009-05-04 08:18:55 EST
In article
<aee33182-9e5b-4a32-b992-89ea42bb573f@d39g2000pra.googl
egroups.com>,
Michael Price <nini_pad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 2, 6:26\ufffdpm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> > Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > > From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
> >
> > > Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> > > made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> > > money is the root of all evil\ufffdand he's the typical product of money."
> >
> > Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
> > is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
> And straight off the bat you're misinterpreting, Scudder may not
> have
> known his bible but Franciso did and addresses that point later.

By that time he has already killed everyone (including
the reader) with pontifical gas. But what difference
does it make, after all? "Money is the root of all
evil" is a vulgar pseudo-proverb; no one really
believes it, but it's a thing people like to say in
order to appear (vulgarly) philosophical while
bullshitting with their fellow wage slaves in the
diner.

If we and Rand must flog the poor New Testament to
score our points, we should at least understand that in
1 Timothy 6:10, "Rhiza gar panton kakon estin he
philarguria," _panton_, "all", means "all kinds of" in
the context. (St. Paul is recommending a materially
modest life and saying that those who strive after
great wealth become unhappy, besides neglecting their
religious duties, for example, supporting St. Paul.)
So all the gaseous pontification here is built out of
nothing. Money is interesting and admirable stuff, and
one might well love it in spite of St. Paul; but Rand's
characters seem to miss most of its attractive
qualities in favor of drearily blathering philosophy.
How people can get through hundreds of pages of this
stuff is beyond me.


> >
> > > Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
> > > Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
> >
> > > "So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> > > d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a
> > > tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced
> > > and men able to produce them.
> >
> > Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
> > ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
> >
> And how does he gather natural goods or claim ownership of land?
> Without
> production there is no need for money and without a need for it it
> would not
> exist.
>
> > > Money is the material shape of the
> > > principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by
> > > trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the
> > > moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who
> > > take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who
> > > produce. Is this what you consider evil?
> >
> > > "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on
> > > the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the
> > > effort of others.
> >
> > Once again, no natural goods for sale.
> >
> No goods made availible without effort for sale, there's a big
> difference.
>
> > And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away, since
> > that would be eeeeevil.
> >
> Where did you get that impression? In fact generousity (either
> monetary
> or non-monetary) is a defining characteristic of Randian heroes.
>
> > > It is not the moochers or the looters who give
> > > value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world
> > > can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you
> > > will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should
> > > have been gold,
> >
> > I guess the alchemists better get to work--
>
> No yes the metalworkers.
> >
> > > are a token of honor\ufffd your claim upon the energy of
> > > the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
> > > somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default
> > > on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> > > consider evil?
> >
> > > "Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
> > > electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
> > > muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
> >
> > On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular effort?
> > (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine slam against
> > workers.)
> >
> And now we move into the bullshit slander part of the debate. The
> implication
> here is that the producers of a generator were not unthinking brutes,
> otherwise
> how would they have been able to produce a generator? You are too
> smart to
> have made this mistake accidentally, you're simply lying now.
>
> > > Try to grow a seed of wheat
> > > without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for
> > > the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but
> > > physical motions\ufffdand you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all
> > > the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on
> > > earth.
> >
> > Animals (real "unthinking brutes") somehow manage to obtain food without
> > having a man's mind. Plants obtain nourishment without a mind at all.
> >
> And is there an example of a human being getting food without the
> use of
> a person's mind? Certainly not in modern society and still less in
> hunter-gather
> societies, where those who try to survive without thinking get real
> thin real fast.
>
> > > "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good,
> > > you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by
> > > which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
> > > Blood, whips and guns\ufffdor dollars. Take your choice\ufffdthere is no
> > > other\ufffdand your time is running out."
> >
> > This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative, then
> > there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when Rand had her
> > affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two possibilities: (1)
> > one of them was raping the other; (2) one of them was a whore. Which is it?
> >
> > At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility, which
> > he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are other ways to
> > influence people, as well.
>
>
> There is no alternative for economic management, and you know it.
> Money, i.e. productivity is in fact the source of love, because you
> can't
> love without virtue and you can't be virtuous without fundamentally
> being
> productive.
> >
> > I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people deal
> > with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those with
> > family, friends, lovers, etc.
> >
> Are these your most valuable relationships? Are they the ones that
> keep you fed, healthy, informed, entertained, etc.? In fact we find
> that many
> nonmonetary relationships are toxic.
>
> > Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually
> > Begins with Ayn Rand:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5
> >
> > --
> > Dan Clore
> >
> > My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> > (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> > Lord We\ufffdrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> >
> > Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> > immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> > -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

Dan Clore
2009-05-04 13:43:50 EST
Michael Price wrote:
> On May 2, 6:26 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

>>> From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387: Rearden heard Bertram
>>> Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of
>>> indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the
>>> root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."

>> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money
>> that is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
> And straight off the bat you're misinterpreting, Scudder may not have
> known his bible but Franciso did and addresses that point later.

I didn't dig the book out and read the whole screed, true enough, so I
didn't realize that. If I had done so, I would have pointed out the way
that the original poster skips several pages of bloviation without
noting the fact.

>>> Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he
>>> saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile. "So
>>> you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
>>> d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money
>>> is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods
>>> produced and men able to produce them.
>> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
>> ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
>>
> And how does he gather natural goods or claim ownership of land?
> Without production there is no need for money and without a need for
> it it would not exist.

No, I'm not going to accept a simple claim to own land (or anything
else) as "production". For that matter, libertarians don't generally
accept such claims as valid without something more (hence all the talk
about "mixing labor" with land as the basis for ownership and such).

>>> Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to
>>> deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
>>> value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your
>>> product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by
>>> force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is
>>> this what you consider evil? "When you accept money in payment
>>> for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will
>>> exchange it for the product of the effort of others.
>> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>>
> No goods made availible without effort for sale, there's a big
> difference.

Michael, I own the planet Mars. I'll sell it to you--

>> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away,
>> since that would be eeeeevil.
>>
> Where did you get that impression? In fact generousity (either
> monetary or non-monetary) is a defining characteristic of Randian
> heroes.

She states it very explicitly in her essays. (I don't find Atlas
Shrugged readable as a novel.) All that stuff about "altruism".

>>> are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of the men who
>>> produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in
>>> the world around you there are men who will not default on that
>>> moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
>>> consider evil? "Have you ever looked for the root of production?
>>> Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that
>>> it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
>> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular
>> effort? (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine
>> slam against workers.)
>>
> And now we move into the bullshit slander part of the debate. The
> implication here is that the producers of a generator were not
> unthinking brutes, otherwise how would they have been able to produce
> a generator? You are too smart to have made this mistake
> accidentally, you're simply lying now.

Well no, the implication here is that the generator was created by the
muscular effort of unthinking brutes directed by the Atlases (brainy
bosses) who hold up the world.

>>> "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all
>>> good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be
>>> the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the
>>> tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your
>>> choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."

>> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative,
>> then there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when
>> Rand had her affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two
>> possibilities: (1) one of them was raping the other; (2) one of
>> them was a whore. Which is it?
>>
>> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility,
>> which he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are
>> other ways to influence people, as well.
>
> There is no alternative for economic management, and you know it.
> Money, i.e. productivity is in fact the source of love, because you
> can't love without virtue and you can't be virtuous without
> fundamentally being productive.

There are in fact other alternatives for economic management, though I
would agree that they don't work as well as market-based systems (I'm
basically an anarcho-individualist along the lines of Benjamin Tucker
and Robert Anton Wilson). But the point was that human relations include
much more than the economic sphere, and that many of these other
relations are among the most valuable.

>> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people
>> deal with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those
>> with family, friends, lovers, etc.
>>
> Are these your most valuable relationships? Are they the ones that
> keep you fed, healthy, informed, entertained, etc.? In fact we find
> that many nonmonetary relationships are toxic.

I think these are my most valuable relationships. But I guess you could
interpret "most valuable" two ways. I'd say that if you do something so
that you can do something else, the second is the more valuable (that's
your goal). But you could also say that the first is more valuable,
since without it you couldn't do the second (your goal).

And yes, I'm quite aware that non-monetary relationships can be toxic.
(Though hopefully not this one over Usenet.)

>> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It
>> Usually Begins with Ayn Rand:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

Michael Price
2009-05-07 01:24:18 EST
On May 4, 10:18 pm, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <aee33182-9e5b-4a32-b992-89ea42bb5...@d39g2000pra.googl
> egroups.com>,
>  Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 6:26 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> > > Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > > > From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387:
>
> > > > Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who
> > > > made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know,
> > > > money is the root of all evil‹and he's the typical product of money."
>
> > > Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money that
> > > is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
> >   And straight off the bat you're misinterpreting, Scudder may not
> > have
> > known his bible but Franciso did and addresses that point later.
>
> By that time he has already killed everyone (including
> the reader) with pontifical gas.  But what difference
> does it make, after all?  "Money is the root of all
> evil" is a vulgar pseudo-proverb; no one really
> believes it, but it's a thing people like to say in
> order to appear (vulgarly) philosophical while
> bullshitting with their fellow wage slaves in the
> diner.

If nobody believes it why do they say it? Why if none of their
listeners believe it do the speakers think it will be effective in
their goals?
>
> If we and Rand must flog the poor New Testament to
> score our points, we should at least understand that in
> 1 Timothy 6:10, "Rhiza gar panton kakon estin he
> philarguria," _panton_, "all", means "all kinds of" in
> the context.

Well thank you for giving me ONE word translated out of 7.

>  (St. Paul is recommending a materially
> modest life and saying that those who strive after
> great wealth become unhappy, besides neglecting their
> religious duties, for example, supporting St. Paul.)  
> So all the gaseous pontification here is built out of
> nothing.  Money is interesting and admirable stuff, and
> one might well love it in spite of St. Paul; but Rand's
> characters seem to miss most of its attractive
> qualities in favor of drearily blathering philosophy.  

How so? What attractive qualities do they miss?

> How people can get through hundreds of pages of this
> stuff is beyond me.
>
It's far better philosophy than any I had seen until then. Far
better than for instance Plato, who was ludicrous. Yet Rand gets
all the hostility, why?

Michael Price
2009-05-07 01:33:23 EST
On May 5, 3:43 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On May 2, 6:26 pm, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> >>> From ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand, page 387: Rearden heard Bertram
> >>> Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of
> >>> indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the
> >>> root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."
> >> Scudder doesn't know his Bible very well. It's the *love of* money
> >> that is supposedly the root of all evil. There's a big difference.
>
> > And straight off the bat you're misinterpreting, Scudder may not have
> >  known his bible but Franciso did and addresses that point later.
>
> I didn't dig the book out and read the whole screed, true enough, so I
> didn't realize that. If I had done so, I would have pointed out the way
> that the original poster skips several pages of bloviation without
> noting the fact.
>
> >>> Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he
> >>> saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile. "So
> >>> you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
> >>> d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money
> >>> is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods
> >>> produced and men able to produce them.
> >> Money can't be used to exchange natural goods? If someone claims
> >> ownership of (for example) a piece of land, he can't sell it? Damn.
>
> > And how does he gather natural goods or claim ownership of land?
> > Without production there is no need for money and without a need for
> > it it would not exist.
>
> No, I'm not going to accept a simple claim to own land (or anything
> else) as "production".

Nor did Rand.

> For that matter, libertarians don't generally
> accept such claims as valid without something more (hence all the talk
> about "mixing labor" with land as the basis for ownership and such).
>
Yep and that's what Rand believed in.

> >>> Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to
> >>> deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
> >>> value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your
> >>> product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by
> >>> force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is
> >>> this what you consider evil? "When you accept money in payment
> >>> for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will
> >>> exchange it for the product of the effort of others.
> >> Once again, no natural goods for sale.
>
> > No goods made availible without effort for sale, there's a big
> > difference.
>
> Michael, I own the planet Mars. I'll sell it to you--
>
Did you mix labour with it?

> >> And I won't even mention the possibility of giving money away,
> >> since that would be eeeeevil.
>
> > Where did you get that impression?  In fact generousity (either
> > monetary or non-monetary) is a defining characteristic of Randian
> > heroes.
>
> She states it very explicitly in her essays. (I don't find Atlas
> Shrugged readable as a novel.) All that stuff about "altruism".
>
Well evidently you didn't think any of her novels were readable
since as
I say they all include generosity by her heroes (this is an
understandable
opinion). However if you read her essays on "altruism" she repeatedly
says
that valuing people and helping them because you value them is not
altruism.
If you value your wife's survival then it's not "altruism" to look
after her when
she's sick.
>
> >>> are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of the men who
> >>> produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in
> >>> the world around you there are men who will not default on that
> >>> moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you
> >>> consider evil? "Have you ever looked for the root of production?
> >>> Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that
> >>> it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
> >> On the other hand, could it have been created without muscular
> >> effort? (I'll leave aside "unthinking brutes" as simply an asinine
> >> slam against workers.)
>
> > And now we move into the bullshit slander part of the debate.  The
> > implication here is that the producers of a generator were not
> > unthinking brutes, otherwise how would they have been able to produce
> > a generator?  You are too smart to have made this mistake
> > accidentally, you're simply lying now.
>
> Well no, the implication here is that the generator was created by the
> muscular effort of unthinking brutes directed by the Atlases (brainy
> bosses) who hold up the world.
>
No, it's that brutes are incapable of making generators by
themselves.
That doesn't mean that people who need help to make generators are
brutes. Of course if they think that it's OK to steal the generator
because
they "made" it then they're brutes.
>
> >>> "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all
> >>> good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be
> >>> the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the
> >>> tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your
> >>> choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."
> >> This is just bloody ridiculous. If there is no other alternative,
> >> then there is no sex outside of rape and prostitution. So, when
> >> Rand had her affair with Nathaniel Branden, there were only two
> >> possibilities: (1) one of them was raping the other; (2) one of
> >> them was a whore. Which is it?
>
> >> At least David Friedman had the sense to add a third possibility,
> >> which he called "love" (as in "love is not enough"). There are
> >> other ways to influence people, as well.
>
> > There is no alternative for economic management, and you know it.
> > Money, i.e. productivity is in fact the source of love, because you
> > can't love without virtue and you can't be virtuous without
> > fundamentally being productive.
>
> There are in fact other alternatives for economic management, though I
> would agree that they don't work as well as market-based systems (I'm
> basically an anarcho-individualist along the lines of Benjamin Tucker
> and Robert Anton Wilson). But the point was that human relations include
> much more than the economic sphere, and that many of these other
> relations are among the most valuable.
>
And of the relations you find most valuable, which are with people
who
are not productive? Don't count children they're producing human
capital.

> >> I would say that money is generally not the tool by which people
> >> deal with one another in their most valuable relationships -- those
> >> with family, friends, lovers, etc.
>
> > Are these your most valuable relationships?  Are they the ones that
> > keep you fed, healthy, informed, entertained, etc.?  In fact we find
> > that many nonmonetary relationships are toxic.
>
> I think these are my most valuable relationships.

Then you've never dreaded seeing your mother's number on caller ID?
Because
I think most people have.

> But I guess you could
> interpret "most valuable" two ways. I'd say that if you do something so
> that you can do something else, the second is the more valuable (that's
> your goal). But you could also say that the first is more valuable,
> since without it you couldn't do the second (your goal).
>
> And yes, I'm quite aware that non-monetary relationships can be toxic.
> (Though hopefully not this one over Usenet.)
>
Well it's usenet so that's not a good sign to start with :>

> >> Those interested in Rand should read Jerome Tuccille's book It
> >> Usually Begins with Ayn Rand:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/cbarm5
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron