The Wisdom of Ayn Rand

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I see things haven’t changed at all since the last time I was here.[/quote]

I share your frustration.
[/quote]

You know it’s funny. I read Atlas Shrugged about 15 or 16 years ago, when I was a sophomore in high school. I didn’t think much of it then and Rand has never really been on my radar as a result. I never knew there were so many people infatuated with her until I started coming onto this forum. Personally, I think it’s a bad sign when a book like that doesn’t have any noticeable impact on a very impressionable, politically-astute 15 year old.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this!

I love her celebration of self-reliance and I think her warnings of the long term effects of a large, centralized gov’t were almost prophetic. Other than that,… meh.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
I love her celebration of self-reliance and I think her warnings of the long term effects of a large, centralized gov’t were almost prophetic. Other than that,… meh.[/quote]

That’s pretty much how I feel about her too. A lot of the philosophy she gets into makes sense, but it makes sense intuitively so there isn’t really anything revolutionary or really even anything new in a lot of it. For instance, some of her thoughts on the profit motive and governmental control make sense, but it’s just a fancy rehash of microeconomics for dummies.

Looks like some of the Republican leadership and pundits are taking
heat for supporting Ayn Rand:

[quote]Can a person follow Ayn Rand and Jesus?

That’s the question posed by a provocative media campaign that claims
that some prominent conservative leaders cannot serve two masters:
Jesus and the controversial author of  “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand.

The American Values Network, a group of political activists and
pastors, sparked a debate when it recently released a video
challenging some conservative and Republican leaders? professed
admiration for Rand,  an atheist who saw selfishness as a virtue and
celebrated unfettered capitalism.

Eric Sapp,  AVN’s executive director, said the Republican Party cannot
portray itself as a defender of Christian values and then defend the
worldview of “the patron saint of selfishness” who scorned religion
and compassion.

Sapp singled out Republican leaders such as Rep. Paul Ryan,
R-Wisconsin, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, and talk radio host Rush
Limbaugh after all of them expressed admiration for Rand.

Ryan,  architect of the GOP’s proposed budget and Medicare plan, once
said that Rand’s philosophy was “sorely needed right now,” and that
she did a great job of explaining “the morality of capitalism.”

…[/quote]

Jesus or Ayn Rand – can conservatives claim both? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.[/quote]

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read - but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.

(heh)

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this! [/quote]

Well you set up a proper argument, I must say. I disagree with the conclusions because I don’t think Rand ever stated that “tradition of the founding fathers” was essential to living a moral life and bringing about the greater good of humanity. Is it not possible to agree with the founding philosophers on some of their beliefs and not agree with them on the others and still have “good results”?

The way I interpret her is that she believed the attainment of the “material good” would lead to the betterment of society as a result of the cooperation necessary to bring it about. When man sets out morally to satisfy his own wants there are some pretty good things that happen because of it.

I can agree with her in certain cases about morality but I don’t agree with her other assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this! [/quote]

Well you set up a proper argument, I must say. I disagree with the conclusions because I don’t think Rand ever stated that “tradition of the founding fathers” was essential to living a moral life and bringing about the greater good of humanity. Is it not possible to agree with the founding philosophers on some of their beliefs and not agree with them on the others and still have “good results”?

The way I interpret her is that she believed the attainment of the “material good” would lead to the betterment of society as a result of the cooperation necessary to bring it about. When man sets out morally to satisfy his own wants there are some pretty good things that happen because of it.

I can agree with her in certain cases about morality but I don’t agree with her other assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology.[/quote]

Sure you can disagree with the Founding Fathers and still have good results. They didn’t all agree with each other anyways so you’re probably invariably disagreeing with some of them on various issues.

But it’s where Rand disagrees with the basic line of political thought that brought democracy out from under the control of centralized governments such as monarchies that I think she errs. Most political theory that has shaped not only this country but the concept of republicanism and secularism in general has had as an underlying principle that God is the final arbiter of morality.

Now, guys like Locke and Paine and so forth definitely supported the idea of a separation of church and state, given the conditions under which they formed their political theories. But they never go so far as to say that their own temporal powers somehow trumped God’s, meaning that they never claimed to be the final arbiter of what morality is. There was still an absolute authority in this respect and to follow God’s law allowed for the tolerance of other religions. I think regardless of whether you believe in “God”, most people do believe in some sort of higher power, some entity or force or innate morality instilled within us or whatever that acts as a sort of barometer for what is right and wrong. I think we can also agree for the most part that govt does not need to legislate this morality for us, but this does not mean we reject that sort of morality.

This is where Rand errs. She basically equates money with being the final arbiter of morality. She feels that the profit motive and the need to be selfish in pursuit of profit will lead to a natural betterment of society since the free market will just bring itself into equilibrium across the board. I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. I definitely feel that her economic theories, which aren’t really hers but are simply a fanciful regurgitation of Adam Smith, are somewhat sound. But encouraging selfish behavior purely in pursuit of personal wealth and materialism and a rejection of any type of spirituality that has a deity other than the almighty dollar is a recipe for disaster in society. I fear that much of what she espoused in this respect is responsible for the current condition of the country.

You see, when you equate money with morality in the way Rand does, society will always tend to look at those who don’t have money, in a very general sense, to be “bad”. But this isn’t the stick by which to measure morality and if it is, things get out of whack.

Absurd
Impossible

She is a 19th century thinker.

Objectivism
Materialism
Utilitarian Ethics
Economicism / Sociologism
blind faith in Progress and rationality.
religion and spirituality seen as superstitious and archaic

all this was already in Marx, or (even earlier) in St Simon’s philosophy.

it’s just a capitalist version of an old socialist thought.

to qualify as a 20th century thinker, she would have to actually address some of the questions that aroused in the 20th century (radical evil, totalitarism, global crisis, environmental ethics, bioethics, collapse of traditionnal societies and identities, etc).

Irrelevant, but I bought Atlas Shrugged recently. They said I can’t possibly hope to understand the book as a non-native English speaker. They said the same thing with Catch-22. I finished it in a week. If anyone has read them both, how do these two compare in terms of reading difficulty?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this! [/quote]

Well you set up a proper argument, I must say. I disagree with the conclusions because I don’t think Rand ever stated that “tradition of the founding fathers” was essential to living a moral life and bringing about the greater good of humanity. Is it not possible to agree with the founding philosophers on some of their beliefs and not agree with them on the others and still have “good results”?

The way I interpret her is that she believed the attainment of the “material good” would lead to the betterment of society as a result of the cooperation necessary to bring it about. When man sets out morally to satisfy his own wants there are some pretty good things that happen because of it.

I can agree with her in certain cases about morality but I don’t agree with her other assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology.[/quote]

Sure you can disagree with the Founding Fathers and still have good results. They didn’t all agree with each other anyways so you’re probably invariably disagreeing with some of them on various issues.

But it’s where Rand disagrees with the basic line of political thought that brought democracy out from under the control of centralized governments such as monarchies that I think she errs. Most political theory that has shaped not only this country but the concept of republicanism and secularism in general has had as an underlying principle that God is the final arbiter of morality.

Now, guys like Locke and Paine and so forth definitely supported the idea of a separation of church and state, given the conditions under which they formed their political theories. But they never go so far as to say that their own temporal powers somehow trumped God’s, meaning that they never claimed to be the final arbiter of what morality is. There was still an absolute authority in this respect and to follow God’s law allowed for the tolerance of other religions. I think regardless of whether you believe in “God”, most people do believe in some sort of higher power, some entity or force or innate morality instilled within us or whatever that acts as a sort of barometer for what is right and wrong. I think we can also agree for the most part that govt does not need to legislate this morality for us, but this does not mean we reject that sort of morality.

This is where Rand errs. She basically equates money with being the final arbiter of morality. She feels that the profit motive and the need to be selfish in pursuit of profit will lead to a natural betterment of society since the free market will just bring itself into equilibrium across the board. I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. I definitely feel that her economic theories, which aren’t really hers but are simply a fanciful regurgitation of Adam Smith, are somewhat sound. But encouraging selfish behavior purely in pursuit of personal wealth and materialism and a rejection of any type of spirituality that has a deity other than the almighty dollar is a recipe for disaster in society. I fear that much of what she espoused in this respect is responsible for the current condition of the country.

[/quote]

Rand assumes that people will understand that it is in someones selfish best-interest to have a society that operates smoothly and morally. I think the history of mankind shows this to be an incorrect assumption.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this! [/quote]

Well you set up a proper argument, I must say. I disagree with the conclusions because I don’t think Rand ever stated that “tradition of the founding fathers” was essential to living a moral life and bringing about the greater good of humanity. Is it not possible to agree with the founding philosophers on some of their beliefs and not agree with them on the others and still have “good results”?

The way I interpret her is that she believed the attainment of the “material good” would lead to the betterment of society as a result of the cooperation necessary to bring it about. When man sets out morally to satisfy his own wants there are some pretty good things that happen because of it.

I can agree with her in certain cases about morality but I don’t agree with her other assumptions of metaphysics and epistemology.[/quote]

Sure you can disagree with the Founding Fathers and still have good results. They didn’t all agree with each other anyways so you’re probably invariably disagreeing with some of them on various issues.

But it’s where Rand disagrees with the basic line of political thought that brought democracy out from under the control of centralized governments such as monarchies that I think she errs. Most political theory that has shaped not only this country but the concept of republicanism and secularism in general has had as an underlying principle that God is the final arbiter of morality.

Now, guys like Locke and Paine and so forth definitely supported the idea of a separation of church and state, given the conditions under which they formed their political theories. But they never go so far as to say that their own temporal powers somehow trumped God’s, meaning that they never claimed to be the final arbiter of what morality is. There was still an absolute authority in this respect and to follow God’s law allowed for the tolerance of other religions. I think regardless of whether you believe in “God”, most people do believe in some sort of higher power, some entity or force or innate morality instilled within us or whatever that acts as a sort of barometer for what is right and wrong. I think we can also agree for the most part that govt does not need to legislate this morality for us, but this does not mean we reject that sort of morality.

This is where Rand errs. She basically equates money with being the final arbiter of morality. She feels that the profit motive and the need to be selfish in pursuit of profit will lead to a natural betterment of society since the free market will just bring itself into equilibrium across the board. I think this is a very dangerous line to walk. I definitely feel that her economic theories, which aren’t really hers but are simply a fanciful regurgitation of Adam Smith, are somewhat sound. But encouraging selfish behavior purely in pursuit of personal wealth and materialism and a rejection of any type of spirituality that has a deity other than the almighty dollar is a recipe for disaster in society. I fear that much of what she espoused in this respect is responsible for the current condition of the country.

[/quote]
This is why I don’t like appealing to authority in my arguments. Some of Rand’s ideas are good and some of them are not consistent with her good ideas.

When we focus on the individual speaking the ideas and we are faced with one idea that we disagree with, suddenly all of those person’s ideas might become intolerable and be rejected out of hand.

[quote]kamui wrote:

Absurd
Impossible

She is a 19th century thinker.

Objectivism
Materialism
Utilitarian Ethics
Economicism / Sociologism
blind faith in Progress and rationality.
religion and spirituality seen as superstitious and archaic

all this was already in Marx, or (even earlier) in St Simon’s philosophy.

it’s just a capitalist version of an old socialist thought.

to qualify as a 20th century thinker, she would have to actually address some of the questions that aroused in the 20th century (radical evil, totalitarism, global crisis, environmental ethics, bioethics, collapse of traditionnal societies and identities, etc).[/quote]

Rubbish.

Rand lived and created her work in the 20th Century even if she was enlightened by the ideas of the 19th Century. She was a 20th Century philosopher.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rand was a radical philosopher of the continental stripe whose fetishism of the satisfaction of terrestrial appetites as the highest good and exaltation of godless materialism have little in common with the classical liberal tradition of the West (Anglo-American thought, Scottish Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, etc.).

She is really just a Marxist, and shares all the assumptions of a Marxist - she just happens to take the side against the proletariat.

Rand is the literature of adolescents. Rand gives young people a sense of anti-autoritarianism and radical chic, and convinces them that they have discovered “philosophy” at a young age.

Rand - who simply recycled the fable of the Golden Goose in her works - isn’t to be taken seriously. [/quote]

TB, while you are one of my favorite posters on TN, the above is just nonsense.
When I run into people who have opinions like the above what I tend to find is that they have never truly read her works. They have read others opinions of her works, interpretations, etc., but they have never put in the time to completely read her work.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I see things haven’t changed at all since the last time I was here.[/quote]

I share your frustration.
[/quote]

You know it’s funny. I read Atlas Shrugged about 15 or 16 years ago, when I was a sophomore in high school. I didn’t think much of it then and Rand has never really been on my radar as a result. I never knew there were so many people infatuated with her until I started coming onto this forum. Personally, I think it’s a bad sign when a book like that doesn’t have any noticeable impact on a very impressionable, politically-astute 15 year old.[/quote]

To quote Rand, contradictions do not exist. I think it more likely that you overestimate your abilities and intellect and underestimate hers.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

TB, while you are one of my favorite posters on TN, the above is just nonsense.
When I run into people who have opinions like the above what I tend to find is that they have never truly read her works. They have read others opinions of her works, interpretations, etc., but they have never put in the time to completely read her work.[/quote]

With due respect, sorry, it isn’t nonsense. She’s a thoroughgoing materialist and speaks of replacing the cross with the dollar sign and all that stuff. She is an unapologetic defender of industrialism as the savior of humanity and she is an enemy of government. She assumes humans as she wants them to be, not as they are.

You won’t find any of that kind of thinking in the work of the political wisdom of the Founding Fathers (even controlling for the variety of opinions among them) or political philosophers that influenced their thinking.

Rand’s works are like a sugar high for young anti-authoritarians. Her works caricature humans, rather than explaining them.

Let me put it this way - people are no more interested in Rand’s utopia than they are Marx’s. And she doesn’t belong in the Western canon of thought on anything sensible or political.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no content to even understand from your post and DBC was just subjectively interpreting it. What you wrote is just prose and some cliche you read off the interwebz.

You have no clear premise and further fail to defend and come to any logical conclusions. It is a non argument.

Your post is nothing more than a series of strawmen, reeking of rhetorical and undefinable terms; re:

This is the most nonsensical sentence I have ever read…but points for grammar, punctuation, and proper spelling of multi-syllable words.[/quote]

Rand was obsessed with the philosophy of satisfying one’s own physical wants and desires (materialism) and valued this pursuit above and beyond spiritual growth, hence her rejection of religion. This is far, far different from the line of political philosophy (Locke, Paine, Bodin, King James I and VI, Madison, de Mornay, etc) that has shaped modern democracy.

Hey, I’m pretty good at this! [/quote]

As I suspected, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You are regurgitating the misinterpretations of others.

She was not obsessed with materialism. Only a addled adolescent would come away with this.

She simply understood that one could not honorably consume more than one could honorably produce.

There are better philosophers and thinkers out there than Ayn Rand on the subjects she most frequently wrote, although she may just have been one of the most influential of our time (influential does NOT mean “best” outright).

To defend the ‘philosophy of greed’ as some have called it though, I’d like to say a few things.

  1. EVERYONE acts within their own self-interest (i.e. to satisfy their desires). This is basically a tautology and is so plainly obvious people like to pretend it can’t be true. Even charity, self-sacrifice, etc. are done exclusively to satisfy the desires of the acting individual otherwise it wouldn’t be done.

  2. Following from 1, being kind and charitable just might BE your self-interested desire, so blindly following your desires does not preclude being kind or interested in the welfare of others at all. In fact, people tend to derive more pleasure out of giving so it would seem like this would lead to more of that behavior.

  3. Securing yourself and making yourself stronger allows you to better help others. Just like you are supposed to put your own mask on before your child, so it is in other aspects of life. Giving of yourself to the point of ruin hurts society in the long run more than it helps it. Would Bill Gates have done 1/10th of the charitable good he has to date if he had given up computers and joined the Peace Corp? No he wouldn’t have. He made himself strong first and then made an exponentially greater contribution to society as a result.

  4. Following from 4, if you worry about yourself you often will not need SOMEONE ELSE to worry about you. Get your own shit sorted out so you can avoid being a leach on society. If everyone did this we would not need a lot of private charity.

The idea that taking care of yourself first is synonymous with avarice and evil is about as simple minded and lazy thinking as anything out there.

Apologies for the long cut and past, but below is Francisco’s money speech. I think it might clear up some of the misunderstandings.

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.”

  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 ? 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 ? 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 by 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 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, then man of best judgment and highest 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 that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

  "Money is your means of survival. The verdict which 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?

  "Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? 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 the 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 ? their 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 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 those 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 becomes, 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 it's 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, 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 that 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 achievements 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." 

It will be easy for some to isolate one sentence out of context and condemn the whole. Please do not do this. Read and then reread.

I believe the disconnect comes when people look at today’s world, the world of Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve and Barack Obama, and they conflate producers with manipulators and moochers.

Today’s world is not what Rand was trying to lead us to. It was what she was trying to warn up from.