Howard Roark was just as much a hero to Rand when he was poor as when he was rich, because her ultimate goal is the flourishing of the individual's talents. If your reading of the book was right, Gail Wynand would have been the hero.
Rand was an EVIL CUNT. She went back on her own way of thinking in later life when she began accepting government aid (welfare) and government healthcare for her CANCER because she smoked her entire life. She's a SELFISH MORON who grew up in a world where you had to steal to eat, but America and MODERN LIVING is nothing like the world she lived in. Her 'I only care about me' way of thinking is outdated, barbaric, destructive, disgusting, amoral, and shows what a real hypocrite she was in life.
HAHAHAHA "In reality, people churn out whatever garbage they want to get money and sometimes get rich doing it". Then it shows a pictures of twilight. XD
What about Howard Roark who took a job in a quarry as "honest" work? The irony not withstanding, even the Holy Bible says you must work for "your bread". Sit in a place creating beautiful sculpture but don't show it to anyone and see how long you live without eating. You will have to start working either at making food instead or selling your sculptures. Money (only a token now) is the value we give in exchange for something we not only want but possible need. I disagree with your premise.
All depends upon what do people generally think is money and why it was invented. There is very old evidence of the invention of money well before 12000 years ago and the meaning was the same intended then but forgotten today: To provide the able to exchange with the able in mutual agreement and value.
Therefore, money is a reward for ability and not a bailout for need, however, "printing money" is not the same as "making money", because the intrinsic value of money is destroyed.
Though, im not sure ayn rand would respect any person that does not value their own work..
Anyways, beyond that--ayn certainly believed that a persons value can not be determined by anybody but themselves. Its what a person does with his wealth that reflects his value.
I think that you misunderstand what Ayn was trying to say--she believed that you should live your life according to your values, and that currency is a manifestation of your ability to ordinate your world in the direction of your values. therefore she derived that a persons property is an extention of oneself.
Beyond that, making money off of something nobody values is imposible--therefore, any [moral] money-making venture is valuable. The money you earn can be spent on your own projects.
Money Crazed? I dont think this man has read rand. Rands supports Capitalism that is seperation of state and economics on the condition of her Ethics. She called it the Morality of Reason. What ever you do or what ever you value whether you are a bus driver or a business executive doesnt matter how much you make. Your case against dangy brother is that his "Morality" or "ETHICS" where distuctive. The only reason james can survive is by having an ethics of a mooch. This is clear.
Or in other words, what the "principle" the entreprenuer has in his mind is of no concern to Rand as it really does not matter, as long as he is not becoming rich by using force against innocent persons.
Have you considered the idea that Rand might be taking money as a proxy for well-being of the self? Especially if one refrains from consumption of accumulated wealth and instead invests more into production/capital, even though it is driven by desire for acquiring even more wealth - is a often unnoticed self-sacrificing act taken upon by the "greedy" entreprenuer. Why someone like Rand, who did not ride on a high horse of "me so kind", would value him for doing that shouldn't be difficult.
You're incorrect. Her ultimate heroes don't run companies: Roark and Galt are both not wealthy. Dagny Taggart leaves her company. What you're talking about is explicitly condemned by her - she didn't approve of many aspects of the present culture, which she regarded as decadent. She said that the man who wants to *get* money is corrupt.
So basically it's moral and virtuous to somehow convince people to give you money regardless of the means excluding force? If people have a desire for something it's moral to facilitate that desire so long as it can be done at a profit (presumably because it requires fewer resources from society) and there is no aggression involved.
So the importance is not what is being provided, but rather how efficiently it is provided and how much is provided.
@intercourseman69 I think that's a good summary of Rand's belief, but I would add I personally think there are still values one can hold outside the market. That is there are still levels of aesthetics or morals one must determine on an individual level that cannot be determined by buying or selling them.
Acquiring money legally generally means you provide something of value to others. So yes, a law-abiding citizen desiring money will do something good for society.
According to traditional beliefs, greed is a sin and faith is a virtue...it's actually the opposite.
Aren't you that guy who used to make videos where it was your face, but with all kinds of strange filters which distorted you beyond recognition while you talked?
Rand through Galt in AS: money is the canary in the coal mine of the virtue in society. (something like that)
I tend to agree with that. Debasement of the currency is a good barometer of how much looting is going on.
Doesn't she more glorify the production of wanted goods and services than money as such? Maybe she saw the amount of money desired products/services yielded in the market place as a measure of their value.
@modelmark I am against fiat currency debasement as well. It is not that I think money or production of goods is without value, its just that I think Rand implies money is of objectively more importance than anything else a human can value. While I'm sure there are many people who do rate money above everything else, I still think value, even of money, is based on personal preference, and its possible, even preferable for people to value other things more, such as art for example.
@McDicker96 I think there is no one who rates money above everything else. I am sure of it. She bought cigarettes, so at the time of purchase, she valued the cigarettes over the money, that is why she gave up the money for the cigarettes. She would not have done that if she valued money above everything else. She must have spent money on lots of other things as well, which she than evidently valued higher than money.
@modelmark I was more responding to her philosophy then her actions during life. I her books that's the point I think she is trying to make. Regarding ciggs I thought she liked them mainly for the fact they symbolized "mans reason" to her.
Anyway thanks for the comment and interest, maybe I will make another clarifying my stance more.
@McDicker96 Everyone has to buy lots of things and people who love money above all else have to eat cat food, because that would be cheapest to stay alive and they can hoard most money. But I don't think she advocated that in her books as well. She had a thing for beauty (architecture in fountain head) as well, which needs the sacrifice of money. Also in A.S. talented people took mediocre jobs which earned them little money(the strike). They did not want to give their output to their enemies.
@modelmark I understand that money is desired because it can be used to purchase other things. As Robert Lefevre said they way most people spend money one could come to the conclusion they must hate it because they're always getting rid of it at every possible oppurtunity. My point is that "making money" is a central tenant of western society as well as Ayn Rand's philosophy. Its not that I think she spent her time fantasizing about money like some Dickensian caricature.
@McDicker96 ok, I see. People everywhere seem to be fascinated with controlling resources. Even my cat is very food focused. I have heard about people in China (and experienced myself) that they often ask how much you make in one of the first moments of meeting. The focus is maybe typical for people who came out of poverty just recently. Years of welfare state, made income totally irrelevant here. No one cares what you make, not that I think that is sustainable, bankruptcy coming.
Considering her idea that money can be seen as a sincere expression of how much something is valued, the focus upon getting others to pay for what you produce looks alot like living for the approval of others - being one of the dreaded "second-handers"
@blackacidlizzard Yeah I don't think I've ever equated money with sincerity or earnestness. I suppose someone who pays money for food is sincere about wanting food, but I don't think that automatically makes the money and food earned objectively valuable.
Also I think renouncing people for living off others voluntarily is like someone looking down on someone else for eating food they don't like or wearing clothes they don't like, its none of their business anyway.
@McDicker96 I don't think she denounced those people, but if you look at Reardon's family in AS and I also notices in her play writes that she really hates people who use moral manipulation to get charity. In fact the people living of Reardon's income looked down on HIM. One asked for a donation, but was afraid to mention Reardon, ashamed of the lowlife moneymaker.
@modelmark Right in the video I tried to make the same point about living off people regarding James Taggart living off his sister, Dagny . In the book he also looked down at her as well. However I also tried to show examples of people who lived off others yet weren't really manipulating them, and were still doing great things such as Schubert who lived off his friends and composed great music. Rand seems to dismiss the idea of helping people out because of friendship.
@McDicker96 What gives you the idea she dismiss the idea of helping people out because of friendship? The only thing I can think off is that in Galts gulch they still rented out their car to someone else for 1 dollar and the word free was equal to worthless.
It high praise of the monetary value of your output does seem to indicate your life only gets value through other's value of it, (like blackacidlizzard says), which is strange because she detested that.
Good Lord, man! PLEASE talk slower next time: I can barely understand you!
IndyAndy1 2 months ago
Perhaps the difference between you and Ayn Rand is that whereas you exalt the starving artist, she would much rather see them get paid.
mzmaj7 3 months ago
Howard Roark was just as much a hero to Rand when he was poor as when he was rich, because her ultimate goal is the flourishing of the individual's talents. If your reading of the book was right, Gail Wynand would have been the hero.
mzmaj7 3 months ago
You nailed it dude.
warnation101 3 months ago
Rand was an EVIL CUNT. She went back on her own way of thinking in later life when she began accepting government aid (welfare) and government healthcare for her CANCER because she smoked her entire life. She's a SELFISH MORON who grew up in a world where you had to steal to eat, but America and MODERN LIVING is nothing like the world she lived in. Her 'I only care about me' way of thinking is outdated, barbaric, destructive, disgusting, amoral, and shows what a real hypocrite she was in life.
electronicoffee 3 months ago
HAHAHAHA "In reality, people churn out whatever garbage they want to get money and sometimes get rich doing it". Then it shows a pictures of twilight. XD
jacobthelioneater 3 months ago
Capitalists are Ferengis with small ears
bluewizard52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you're not a smart monkey.
RexisAZero 3 months ago
What about Howard Roark who took a job in a quarry as "honest" work? The irony not withstanding, even the Holy Bible says you must work for "your bread". Sit in a place creating beautiful sculpture but don't show it to anyone and see how long you live without eating. You will have to start working either at making food instead or selling your sculptures. Money (only a token now) is the value we give in exchange for something we not only want but possible need. I disagree with your premise.
libertascreare 3 months ago
All depends upon what do people generally think is money and why it was invented. There is very old evidence of the invention of money well before 12000 years ago and the meaning was the same intended then but forgotten today: To provide the able to exchange with the able in mutual agreement and value.
Therefore, money is a reward for ability and not a bailout for need, however, "printing money" is not the same as "making money", because the intrinsic value of money is destroyed.
lguembes57 3 months ago
Though, im not sure ayn rand would respect any person that does not value their own work..
Anyways, beyond that--ayn certainly believed that a persons value can not be determined by anybody but themselves. Its what a person does with his wealth that reflects his value.
seanphurley 4 months ago
Comment removed
seanphurley 4 months ago
I think that you misunderstand what Ayn was trying to say--she believed that you should live your life according to your values, and that currency is a manifestation of your ability to ordinate your world in the direction of your values. therefore she derived that a persons property is an extention of oneself.
Beyond that, making money off of something nobody values is imposible--therefore, any [moral] money-making venture is valuable. The money you earn can be spent on your own projects.
seanphurley 4 months ago
Comment removed
seanphurley 4 months ago
@McDicker96 You just don't get it. You drank the vintage wine like a grape soda... You missed the experience.
RCWorks 4 months ago
Money Crazed? I dont think this man has read rand. Rands supports Capitalism that is seperation of state and economics on the condition of her Ethics. She called it the Morality of Reason. What ever you do or what ever you value whether you are a bus driver or a business executive doesnt matter how much you make. Your case against dangy brother is that his "Morality" or "ETHICS" where distuctive. The only reason james can survive is by having an ethics of a mooch. This is clear.
Bigturns33 4 months ago
But where would Cobain and Schubert have ended up if they didn't have somebody to give them money?
robzrob 4 months ago
People who interpret her works as "money crazed" have read her books, not her words.
BlackHatZane 4 months ago
Or in other words, what the "principle" the entreprenuer has in his mind is of no concern to Rand as it really does not matter, as long as he is not becoming rich by using force against innocent persons.
utubehayter 4 months ago
Have you considered the idea that Rand might be taking money as a proxy for well-being of the self? Especially if one refrains from consumption of accumulated wealth and instead invests more into production/capital, even though it is driven by desire for acquiring even more wealth - is a often unnoticed self-sacrificing act taken upon by the "greedy" entreprenuer. Why someone like Rand, who did not ride on a high horse of "me so kind", would value him for doing that shouldn't be difficult.
utubehayter 4 months ago
Finally, a decent secular critique of Rand's work. Cheers! Very insightful.
XanderXereus 5 months ago
Great points you are highly intelligent, and IMO also a have your shit together, Most people are greedy simple minded fucks.
Strangepete 6 months ago
Read a little faster please. oh my. Hard to follow.
shonstar 6 months ago
You're incorrect. Her ultimate heroes don't run companies: Roark and Galt are both not wealthy. Dagny Taggart leaves her company. What you're talking about is explicitly condemned by her - she didn't approve of many aspects of the present culture, which she regarded as decadent. She said that the man who wants to *get* money is corrupt.
kasyapa 6 months ago
prosperous people, may or may not be generous with their wealth. Americans are by every measure the most generous people on earth. Why is that?
hydin1 6 months ago
So basically it's moral and virtuous to somehow convince people to give you money regardless of the means excluding force? If people have a desire for something it's moral to facilitate that desire so long as it can be done at a profit (presumably because it requires fewer resources from society) and there is no aggression involved.
So the importance is not what is being provided, but rather how efficiently it is provided and how much is provided.
intercourseman69 6 months ago
@intercourseman69 I think that's a good summary of Rand's belief, but I would add I personally think there are still values one can hold outside the market. That is there are still levels of aesthetics or morals one must determine on an individual level that cannot be determined by buying or selling them.
McDicker96 6 months ago
who is John Galt?
gotohellgooglization 6 months ago
Acquiring money legally generally means you provide something of value to others. So yes, a law-abiding citizen desiring money will do something good for society.
According to traditional beliefs, greed is a sin and faith is a virtue...it's actually the opposite.
EGarrett01 6 months ago
Aren't you that guy who used to make videos where it was your face, but with all kinds of strange filters which distorted you beyond recognition while you talked?
grantsinmypants2 6 months ago
Rand through Galt in AS: money is the canary in the coal mine of the virtue in society. (something like that)
I tend to agree with that. Debasement of the currency is a good barometer of how much looting is going on.
Doesn't she more glorify the production of wanted goods and services than money as such? Maybe she saw the amount of money desired products/services yielded in the market place as a measure of their value.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark I am against fiat currency debasement as well. It is not that I think money or production of goods is without value, its just that I think Rand implies money is of objectively more importance than anything else a human can value. While I'm sure there are many people who do rate money above everything else, I still think value, even of money, is based on personal preference, and its possible, even preferable for people to value other things more, such as art for example.
McDicker96 6 months ago
@McDicker96 I think there is no one who rates money above everything else. I am sure of it. She bought cigarettes, so at the time of purchase, she valued the cigarettes over the money, that is why she gave up the money for the cigarettes. She would not have done that if she valued money above everything else. She must have spent money on lots of other things as well, which she than evidently valued higher than money.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark I was more responding to her philosophy then her actions during life. I her books that's the point I think she is trying to make. Regarding ciggs I thought she liked them mainly for the fact they symbolized "mans reason" to her.
Anyway thanks for the comment and interest, maybe I will make another clarifying my stance more.
McDicker96 6 months ago
@McDicker96 Everyone has to buy lots of things and people who love money above all else have to eat cat food, because that would be cheapest to stay alive and they can hoard most money. But I don't think she advocated that in her books as well. She had a thing for beauty (architecture in fountain head) as well, which needs the sacrifice of money. Also in A.S. talented people took mediocre jobs which earned them little money(the strike). They did not want to give their output to their enemies.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark I understand that money is desired because it can be used to purchase other things. As Robert Lefevre said they way most people spend money one could come to the conclusion they must hate it because they're always getting rid of it at every possible oppurtunity. My point is that "making money" is a central tenant of western society as well as Ayn Rand's philosophy. Its not that I think she spent her time fantasizing about money like some Dickensian caricature.
McDicker96 6 months ago
@McDicker96 ok, I see. People everywhere seem to be fascinated with controlling resources. Even my cat is very food focused. I have heard about people in China (and experienced myself) that they often ask how much you make in one of the first moments of meeting. The focus is maybe typical for people who came out of poverty just recently. Years of welfare state, made income totally irrelevant here. No one cares what you make, not that I think that is sustainable, bankruptcy coming.
modelmark 6 months ago
I hate Ayn Rand.
13AnGeL666 6 months ago
You make a very good point here. Money as a primary does not necessarily equate with real quality or value.
Thumb up!
TheLogicJunkie 6 months ago
Considering her idea that money can be seen as a sincere expression of how much something is valued, the focus upon getting others to pay for what you produce looks alot like living for the approval of others - being one of the dreaded "second-handers"
blackacidlizzard 6 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Yeah I don't think I've ever equated money with sincerity or earnestness. I suppose someone who pays money for food is sincere about wanting food, but I don't think that automatically makes the money and food earned objectively valuable.
Also I think renouncing people for living off others voluntarily is like someone looking down on someone else for eating food they don't like or wearing clothes they don't like, its none of their business anyway.
McDicker96 6 months ago
@McDicker96 I don't think she denounced those people, but if you look at Reardon's family in AS and I also notices in her play writes that she really hates people who use moral manipulation to get charity. In fact the people living of Reardon's income looked down on HIM. One asked for a donation, but was afraid to mention Reardon, ashamed of the lowlife moneymaker.
modelmark 6 months ago
@modelmark Right in the video I tried to make the same point about living off people regarding James Taggart living off his sister, Dagny . In the book he also looked down at her as well. However I also tried to show examples of people who lived off others yet weren't really manipulating them, and were still doing great things such as Schubert who lived off his friends and composed great music. Rand seems to dismiss the idea of helping people out because of friendship.
McDicker96 6 months ago
@McDicker96 What gives you the idea she dismiss the idea of helping people out because of friendship? The only thing I can think off is that in Galts gulch they still rented out their car to someone else for 1 dollar and the word free was equal to worthless.
It high praise of the monetary value of your output does seem to indicate your life only gets value through other's value of it, (like blackacidlizzard says), which is strange because she detested that.
modelmark 6 months ago