Voluntary altruisim and objectivism; and gold as a fiat currency

Posted by vggrafe 8 years, 7 months ago to Economics
3 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I’d appreciate your feedback from an Objectivist view of the book “The Root of All Money.” Feedback on any part is welcome, but two parts especially: (1) I think that Rand didn’t consider voluntarily altruism broadly enough, and the book offers an alternative view of wealth that (I think) integrates moral arguments for altruism (with your own money, not forced by someone else) with the idea of value for value (page 41). (2) Galt’s Gulch relies on gold as an alternative to fiat currency, but the book makes a case that all currency is fiat currency (about page 98).
Disclaimer – I wrote the book. Early reviewers have said that it was very thought provoking, so I think it will be worth your time.
It’s at Amazon, on Kindle, and at https://www.createspace.com/5680753 (use discount code KDDSCHPZ for $1 off). I priced it about as low as those channels will allow, hoping to make it accessible to spur deeper thinking about what money really is, and how to get control of its power, and help with a solid foundation for countering the forced redistributionist folks.. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
    Ayn Rand did "consider altruism broadly enough". Altruism, which means live for others as a moral principle, fundamentally contradicts the basis of ethics and human requirements for life. To be a "voluntary altruist" is to be voluntarily immoral, i.e., deliberately immoral. It is destructive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Agreed, but many people just equate "altruism" with "being nice to others," so speaking against "altruism" in the precise meaning is heard as speaking against being nice. The book offers a definition of wealth as how well the world confirms to your desire for it. With that definition, true selflessness is not logically possible - you give a poor person money because you prefer a world where they smile and you have less money. That is a self-motivated decision, once you accommodate non-monetary returns in your definition of wealth. Thoughts?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        Defining wealth as "how well the world confirms to your desire for it" is circular and based on a floating abstraction. Ayn Rand developed her ethics on objective value and the requirements of human life, not whatever you decide you want. It is not psychological hedonism. Subjective desire to make other people smile is not a basis for ethics and "voluntary altruism" does not negate the destructive fact that sacrifice is sacrifice. The attempt to define "altruism" as nothing other than "being nice" is a-historical and obliterates the concepts of both selfishness and altruism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo