I’ve always known this to be a despicable sentiment. But never moreso than when I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and came upon Francisco d’Anconia’s money speech, which is reprinted with permission from the Estate of Ayn Rand in the current edition of Capitalism Magazine. Everyone could benefit by reading it.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “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?”
“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.”
8 responses so far ↓
1 Stephen // Nov 10, 2007 at 2:18 pm
What a wonderful little summary. I wish I could write like that. I always feel that way when I read Ayn Rand: she had a remarkable ability to put her point in a wonderfully succinct way with maximum punch.
S.
2 Harlem44 // Nov 11, 2007 at 8:22 am
Yes I see where she’s going. But. Didn’t they say it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil??
3 Stephen // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I doesn’t really matter. If you’re talking about the “love” of money rather than money itself I think her comments are still very much apposite.
S.
4 John // Nov 11, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Later in the speech Rand addresses the same thing:
5 Justin Heinze // Nov 14, 2007 at 1:22 am
This is from the Ayn Rand Institute:
“Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.”
[Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_q3
6 Quinney // Nov 14, 2007 at 8:36 am
Justin, Ayn Rand was responding to an early libertarian movement, which is why she calls them hippies. Unless Ron Paul strikes you as a hippy her comments don’t really apply to the libertarian movement of today.
7 Jade // Mar 1, 2008 at 8:12 am
Her comments do apply to libertarians today. Ron Paul holds some terrible ideas when it comes to foreign policy and what liberty really means.
8 John // Mar 1, 2008 at 9:35 am
Jade, some objectivists agree with you.
But, in my opinion, Quinney is absolutely right: Rand was exposed to some people calling themselves ‘libertarian’ who were actually proposing anarchism; in contemporary usage the word ‘libertarian’ denotes support for exactly the kind of minarchist government system Rand advocated. Perhaps if you disagree you could say what the political differences are between Rand’s objectivism and my libertarianism.
Leave a Comment