3 ms·

It's a very Ayn Rand-ish piece. I like this quote: "There is this very, very old puzzle/observation in economics about the lawyer who spends an hour volunteeri

It's a very Ayn Rand-ish piece. I like this quote: "There is this very, very old puzzle/observation in economics about the lawyer who spends an hour volunteering at the soup kitchen, instead of working an extra hour and donating the money to hire someone to work for five hours at the soup kitchen." Of course, in that simple quote nothing is included about how much the Lawyer is enjoying the work, what value she gets from it in other ways than that expressed directly in money. So it may still be a "rational" exchange. Atlas Shrugged changed my relationship with money, also changed my self esteem. As someone brought up in a, what I can only call, overly social way, a very christian way (self-sacrifice is holy etc), rational self-interest is liberating. And indeed I find it more ethical. Us westerners in Christian based societies somehow always like to say that money is the root of all evil, but I feel that that stance (at the very least) doesn't take into account what the alternative is to money, and what money has enabled for us. This quote sums it up for me: "The act of donating money is not the momentary act of writing the check, it is the act of every hour you spent to earn the money to write that check—just as though you worked at the charity itself in your professional capacity, at maximum, grownup efficiency." (Edit, I know, I shouldn't say this, I apologize Dang, I deserve the downvotes, but this is one of those posts that generates a lot of replies and I see it going up and down in karma. It's somehow "engaging". Mentioning Ayn Rand does that every time.)

PopAlongKid 3y ago
>Christian based societies somehow always like to say that money is the root of all evil A common mis-quote of the biblical verse. "The Christian condemnation relates to avarice and greed rather than money itself."[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_money
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Right. The love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.
  - teekert 3y ago
    I love money, it's the source of so much good.
    - joelfried 3y ago
      Do you love money so much that, like the Sackler family, you would kill millions to have more of it? I hope not!
      - teekert 3y ago
        In the words of Rand: "So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . 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?" I recognize all people as my equals, money enables trade between equals, value for value. To kill equals for money feels like staining the very idea of money.
        joelfried 3y ago
        I hope you are able to keep that idea in your head should you ever be in a situation where the damage caused by increasing your money is sufficiently abstracted away from your actions. History has shown us that many folks do not have that ability. The family I chose -- who helped start the opioid epidemic and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands[1] are far from alone as people whose desire to make money caused significant and irreparable harm. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > money enables trade between equals, value for value. True. Money also enables people to be unequal and is a tool for some people to oppress or take advantage of other people. Money itself is value-neutral, it seems to me. It deserves neither love nor hate.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
That's at the nub of it! Do you volunteer at the soup kitchen to help people? Or to make yourself feel something? If the latter, that's a form of tourism and maybe a little lower on the totem pole of noble actions. A boyfriend (long gone) of my niece did a form of this. He got a Stanford Engineering degree then volunteered at soup kitchens etc. She dumped him. A waste of his life and her emotional investment, in her view.
- teekert 3y ago
  I think it's fine if you want to make yourself feel something, that's rational self-interest, no harm done to anyone. I would think less of it if it was just to impress others, in that case you harm yourself (do something you don't like) to make others feel something. Or perhaps it's more complex, there may be secondary effects that are beneficial to you, perhaps some form of status. Regardless, it feels disingenuous.
- throw4747477 3y ago
  > Do you volunteer at the soup kitchen to help people? Or to make yourself feel something? This makes no sense. An altruistic person is precisely someone who feels good about helping other without receiving anything in return.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Unless you interpret in a charitable way instead of a pedantic one. Is it just about pleasing yourself/looking good or is it about a moral imperative to help other people?
    - throw4747477 3y ago
      Unless you interpret it in a charitable way instead of an incredibly misanthropic one. Have you considered that you are introducing a false dichotomy? If helping other people pleases you, doesn’t that just make you a good person? Is it possible that such people exist, and that helping others need not only be the consequence of following the dictates of a rule based ‘imperative’? If I needed help, I would far rather receive it from someone who was doing it because they received personal satisfaction from doing so, than someone doing it because they were trying to avoid violating an imperative.
Symmetry 3y ago
Ayn Rand was very down on charity. Someone giving money to a soup kitchen to make the lives of poor people better would be a "second hander" who let their self esteem get wrapped up in the lives of others. By contrast, it's not obvious what problem Ayn Rand would have with someone spending an hour of their time at a soup kitchen simply to be seen to be charitable for some selfish benefit, though in practice I don't think she'd like that either.
- teekert 3y ago
  Imho wrong. Ayn Rand would have 0 problems with someone giving money to someone voluntarily, out of their own volition, as an act of freedom. It is only at gun point that she had a problem with it (the method of the looters). The second handlers are the Peter Keatings, the people who only think of what other people think of them and act on that (so people who act without personality or integrity). I do agree that her "heroes" would not likely take money unless there was some value to be exchanged against it (ie like in an investment). At least, that is how I interpreted it.
rangerelf 3y ago
It's not "money" that's the root of all evil, it's "the love for money". It completely changes the meaning of the quote.
randomdata 3y ago
> Us westerners in Christian based societies somehow always like to say that money is the root of all evil Traditionally, the saying is that the love of money is the root of all evil. > I feel that that stance (at the very least) doesn't take into account what the alternative is to money The alternative to loving money is not loving money. Fundamentally, money is an IOU. It is certainly useful to be able to give something to someone now and not have to take what they have to trade at the same time. If I offer you work, and you offer me food in return, the food may be spoiled before I get around to eating it. Indeed, it is much better to take your IOU (money) for my work and then redeem it for fresh food later on when I'm hungry. That is an incredibly useful tool. The love of money implies that one starts amassing more IOUs than they could ever possibly redeem just for the sake of having IOUs in their hand. This becomes a drain on one's life as they keep giving and giving without getting anything back in return, notably taking focus away from religion in order to give beyond their reasonable means. > I deserve the downvotes, but this is one of those posts that generates a lot of replies and I see it going up and down in karma. It's somehow "engaging". Downvotes and upvotes are equivalent, both providing record in a poor man's analytics system. Naturally it is engaging to think that your work is being seen. No doubt that is why you are here and not writing the same words in a private journal.

PopAlongKid 3y ago

>Christian based societies somehow always like to say that money is the root of all evil A common mis-quote of the biblical verse. "The Christian condemnation relates to avarice and greed rather than money itself."[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_of_money

JohnFen 3y ago
Right. The love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.
- teekert 3y ago
  I love money, it's the source of so much good.
  - joelfried 3y ago
    Do you love money so much that, like the Sackler family, you would kill millions to have more of it? I hope not!
    - teekert 3y ago
      In the words of Rand: "So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . 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?" I recognize all people as my equals, money enables trade between equals, value for value. To kill equals for money feels like staining the very idea of money.
      - joelfried 3y ago
        I hope you are able to keep that idea in your head should you ever be in a situation where the damage caused by increasing your money is sufficiently abstracted away from your actions. History has shown us that many folks do not have that ability. The family I chose -- who helped start the opioid epidemic and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands[1] are far from alone as people whose desire to make money caused significant and irreparable harm. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > money enables trade between equals, value for value. True. Money also enables people to be unequal and is a tool for some people to oppress or take advantage of other people. Money itself is value-neutral, it seems to me. It deserves neither love nor hate.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

That's at the nub of it! Do you volunteer at the soup kitchen to help people? Or to make yourself feel something? If the latter, that's a form of tourism and maybe a little lower on the totem pole of noble actions. A boyfriend (long gone) of my niece did a form of this. He got a Stanford Engineering degree then volunteered at soup kitchens etc. She dumped him. A waste of his life and her emotional investment, in her view.

teekert 3y ago
I think it's fine if you want to make yourself feel something, that's rational self-interest, no harm done to anyone. I would think less of it if it was just to impress others, in that case you harm yourself (do something you don't like) to make others feel something. Or perhaps it's more complex, there may be secondary effects that are beneficial to you, perhaps some form of status. Regardless, it feels disingenuous.
throw4747477 3y ago
> Do you volunteer at the soup kitchen to help people? Or to make yourself feel something? This makes no sense. An altruistic person is precisely someone who feels good about helping other without receiving anything in return.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Unless you interpret in a charitable way instead of a pedantic one. Is it just about pleasing yourself/looking good or is it about a moral imperative to help other people?
  - throw4747477 3y ago
    Unless you interpret it in a charitable way instead of an incredibly misanthropic one. Have you considered that you are introducing a false dichotomy? If helping other people pleases you, doesn’t that just make you a good person? Is it possible that such people exist, and that helping others need not only be the consequence of following the dictates of a rule based ‘imperative’? If I needed help, I would far rather receive it from someone who was doing it because they received personal satisfaction from doing so, than someone doing it because they were trying to avoid violating an imperative.

Symmetry 3y ago

Ayn Rand was very down on charity. Someone giving money to a soup kitchen to make the lives of poor people better would be a "second hander" who let their self esteem get wrapped up in the lives of others. By contrast, it's not obvious what problem Ayn Rand would have with someone spending an hour of their time at a soup kitchen simply to be seen to be charitable for some selfish benefit, though in practice I don't think she'd like that either.

teekert 3y ago
Imho wrong. Ayn Rand would have 0 problems with someone giving money to someone voluntarily, out of their own volition, as an act of freedom. It is only at gun point that she had a problem with it (the method of the looters). The second handlers are the Peter Keatings, the people who only think of what other people think of them and act on that (so people who act without personality or integrity). I do agree that her "heroes" would not likely take money unless there was some value to be exchanged against it (ie like in an investment). At least, that is how I interpreted it.

rangerelf 3y ago

It's not "money" that's the root of all evil, it's "the love for money". It completely changes the meaning of the quote.

randomdata 3y ago

> Us westerners in Christian based societies somehow always like to say that money is the root of all evil Traditionally, the saying is that the love of money is the root of all evil. > I feel that that stance (at the very least) doesn't take into account what the alternative is to money The alternative to loving money is not loving money. Fundamentally, money is an IOU. It is certainly useful to be able to give something to someone now and not have to take what they have to trade at the same time. If I offer you work, and you offer me food in return, the food may be spoiled before I get around to eating it. Indeed, it is much better to take your IOU (money) for my work and then redeem it for fresh food later on when I'm hungry. That is an incredibly useful tool. The love of money implies that one starts amassing more IOUs than they could ever possibly redeem just for the sake of having IOUs in their hand. This becomes a drain on one's life as they keep giving and giving without getting anything back in return, notably taking focus away from religion in order to give beyond their reasonable means. > I deserve the downvotes, but this is one of those posts that generates a lot of replies and I see it going up and down in karma. It's somehow "engaging". Downvotes and upvotes are equivalent, both providing record in a poor man's analytics system. Naturally it is engaging to think that your work is being seen. No doubt that is why you are here and not writing the same words in a private journal.