Posted on 07/14/2002 1:06:27 PM PDT by chudogg
“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 if 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 -- 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 with 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.
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made -- before it can be looted or mooched -- made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss -- the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery -- that you must offer them values, not wounds -- that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade, with reason, not force, as their final arbiter -- it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and higher ability -- and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality -- the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants. Money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth -- the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – the only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.
“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to the most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs, upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’
“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are.
“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why its crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact t hat they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievement as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.
“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.”
Francisco d’Anconia in Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged (Chapter 11, The Aristocracy of Pull). New York, Random House [1957].
I wasn't talking about her. I was talking about her PHILOSOPHY, that selfish interest is sufficient unto itself for society. It's not.
In Ayn Rand's mind, only "supermen" are worthy to live; the rest are beneath contempt.
That's the polar opposite of reality, where all are children of God and deserving of His love, so much so that He gave His only begotten Son.
Rand's philosophy is petty and ignoble. It is small wonder that most are fascinated by it in adolescence. It appeals to the self-centered world of the adolescent.
Well, amen to that. Of course, "money" has no meaning outside the human context.
(Gee, how long can this go on?)
Do you know of any translations that don't say "the love of money is the root of all evil"?
I finished Atlas Shrugged at five-thirty this morning. Do yourself the biggest favor of your life, read it.
If you consider personal responsibility, living your life so that no man is responsible for you and you are responsible for no man, the concept of productivity and the use of one's mind to it's fullest potential, regardless of what you are told to feel otherwise, a cult. Then yes, she has a cult following. They are called, thinkers and doers. Try to survive life without them.
There is nothing that Ayn Rand has stated that the bible does not cover better.
This, is what I am objecting to.
Where, exactly, did you derive that analysis from?
Also, those who slaughter innocent life, who prey upon the weak of society, etc., are those who have no fear, nor give thought to, anything "higher" than themselves.
But beyond that, it is simple adolescent silliness to expect that the "natural man," unalloyed by a faith and reliance on that which Created him, can be relied upon to live in harmony with his fellows.
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
No other path will work. It never has.
The greatest is this: That a man can arrive all by himself at a moral plateau, and relying only upon himself live in harmony with his fellows.
Rand doesn't even pretend that. She simply despises anyone who is not on the level of her protagonist.
Her philosophy, stripped of the niceties that only a young twenty-something could fail to see through, is that only the strong are worthy; the rest are only cattle fit to serve the strong.
It is SO CLOSE to Fascism in many places that it's actually humorous to see people falling for it.
Of course, millions fell for fascism in the Twentieth Century, so...
I think it's a bit closer to the truth to say the minds of many men are ripe for culthood. Rand was an absolutist and this is one of the great criticisms leveled at the objectivists- the philosophy as practiced by the official 'clique' is pretty dogmatic.
When I was a lot younger- I thought she was the absolute sh!t. But you know, you grow older and hopefully you get a little wiser, sometimes this means your views are moderated- sometimes it just means you get more set in your ways.
I, personally, take Rand with a grain of salt. There are many useful things to be gleaned from her writings. This speech is a fine example and a great justification for some of the principles our nation is founded upon. I'm not, however, one of those who figure just because she said something- it must be true. She presents forceful, thought provoking arguments and I like that. But I have to hold everything she says up to my own inspection and see how it is true or relevent in my own life. Much the same could be said for any philosophy, religion or code of ethics.
I've just never understood why Conservatives hate her so much. Granted, it's easy to understand why liberals and leftists do, but it would seem she shares more with Conservatives than not and she offers great arguments for capitalism, private property, gun ownership/rights, small gov't, low taxes etc. She isn't libertarian (she hated drugs and thought they should be illegal) and I would've thought her ideas would have been closer to home on FR than are libertarians and as you know there are a lot of them (L's) here. Tell you the truth, I was pretty shocked the first time I read a thread about Rand/Objectivism on FR. But, hey! That's life- full of odd twists in the plot.
I've read everything after this, and what follows seems a bit disingenuous.
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.
This is precisely the attitude that Timothy is alluding to, yet Rand seems to act as if this is some original thought on her part.
when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.
Thanks Ayn, but you are about 2000 years late.
Rand takes money as the basis and standard of just exchanges. Those she criticizes would point out that not all exchanges are just. Their argument would be that people do all they can to create unequal or unjust exchanges and often succeed. That's not the fault of money, of course, but if true, it does deflate her argument a bit.
Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders.
Is this really true? "Money" or market forces are better than state coercion or eminent domain, but her critics would argue that they have a coercive force of their own. Very few people today would take the view that money or the love of money are the root of all evil, but that still leaves plenty of room to argue with Rand.
Speaking only for myself, I don't hate her. I just realize that her writings and philosophy came from her bitterness at losing her "stuff" at the hands of the Communists, and it's like one long, adolescent temper-tantrum.
I just think her philosophy is simple-minded and silly, and that typically only an adolescent, who is easily enticed into anything that reinforces his view that he really is the center of the universe, and has no ability for critical thinking, is taken in by this.
Most people I knew read this stuff in high school and college and got all excited about it. When they entered the real world, they discarded it as silly and useless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.