14 Reader Responses

1. Julia Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

   if you love doing something, you don’t need to be paid money

   This works out great for bake sales and such but most people make a trade off between a tolerable job/tolerable rate of pay.

   if you’re paid money to do something, you don’t need to love it

   On some level you do. I think the statistic is 50% of immigrants coming through Ellis Island eventually returned to their home countries. They were being paid a lot more money here.

2. Tim Boucher Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

   It’s very difficult to use money to do good, because of the nature of money.

   [Clever retort]

3. Ted Heistman Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

   I think he has some good points. The dude’s an anarchist.

4. Tim Boucher Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

   Which ones are the good points?

   Being an anarchist means nobody is in charge. Being sovereign is better because you at least then recognize your ability to control your own life and destiny.

5. Eric Says:
   January 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

   Perhaps it would help to define what one means by “money”. I guess that Ran has centralized, “out-of-thin-air” (PLUS Insta-Perma-Debt!) money in mind. I think you (Tim) take exception thinking about local currencies, and other modes of exchange with some positive reflection in reality?

6. Brooke Says:
   January 28th, 2008 at 3:00 am

   You can do good with any form of power (or money). It’s just that to accrue tons and tons of money you have to become kind of a bastard, and it’s hard to turn that train around once it’s going full speed ahead. But it certainly can be done, and has been, and is being.

7. carlos Says:
   January 28th, 2008 at 5:29 am

   “money is an illusion” ???

   1) what isn’t?
   2) what difference does it make?

   besides, how is the concept of “doing good” more tangible than money?

   the idea of something being illusory or real is itself illusory, if u follow me…

   1) what is it doing?
   2) what can i do with it?

   btw, anarchy = personal responsibility, not no responsibility

8. carlos Says:
   January 28th, 2008 at 5:52 am

   y’know, that quote in isolation doesn’t do justice to the rest of ran’s piece. in context it’s not nearly as wrong as it seems here. we’ve witnessed an illusion perhaps? nah, but context is important.

   i think you’ve reacted to the ‘money for work’ thing (understandable given your ambitions at the moment) but there’s money and then there’s money, yknow?

   i don’t think you’re talking about the same thing. paging mr prieur…

9. carlos Says:
   January 28th, 2008 at 5:57 am

   sorry for triple posting (not really) but i think this (by ran) is important:

   I think most people are well-intentioned. Most people naturally want to do good and help others. The real problem is that people are unaware, and undisciplined. They don’t understand the full meaning of their actions, or the system they’re part of, and they have an incentive to not understand. I’ve written about this before: Our tools, including money, enable us to do subtle harm for obvious good, and this pattern feeds itself and grows, and then we have to either be stupid or evil, either not allow ourselves to see the harm, or see it and feel good about it, because if we don’t do one of those things, we have to give up our benefits.

10. Tim Boucher Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    The thing I really took exception to was not the money for work thing. The thing I took exception to was saying that money is the opposite of love. Whatever the context is for a statement like that, it is simply 100% wrong.

    It’s just that to accrue tons and tons of money you have to become kind of a bastard

    No, that’s an assumption. You can be a bastard without accruing tons of money.

11. Steve Mills Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    It is a bit of an over-generalization, but I think that it is the semantics of the word love that are in question here.

    I see where Ran is coming from, a lot of the worlds “evil” systems (and I can see another semantic argument rearing up right here) use money to oil the gears of their engines of despair. And money does give you power to make people do things that they wouldn’t do unless you had the power of money over them.

    But having money, or needing some yourself to take care of business, feed yourself and loved ones, use it to feed and shelter others etc is using money for love..

12. Tim Boucher Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Money is just a symbol for value and the ability for people to exchange value.

13. Brooke Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    No, that’s an assumption. You can be a bastard without accruing tons of money.

    I’m sure it is an assumption. But I didn’t say you couldn’t be a poor bastard, or that you can’t accrue money and also be a decent human being. I just meant that to amass a whole lot of money requires a certain degree of self-interest (self love), and a lot of people go too far with that in their striving for wealth and get lost there. You have all these people who don’t know how to make money without it being at the expense of others. And conversely you have people who value love above all else - but misinterpret love as meaning complete selflessness. They tend to have money troubles because they experience a conflict between living according to that limited idea of love and the ability to attract or build wealth.

    So I agree with you completely that money and love are not opposites at all. it’s the belief that they are which stops creative thinking, because it’s a ‘given’ that you have to exclude one to have the other, and that creates rich tyrants and starving saints. I choose neither of those.

14. Tim Boucher Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    And conversely you have people who value love above all else - but misinterpret love as meaning complete selflessness.

    Could you expand on this either here or elsewhere!

    money and love are not opposites at all. it’s the belief that they are which stops creative thinking, because it’s a ‘given’ that you have to exclude one to have the other, and that creates rich tyrants and starving saints

    Rich tyrants and starving saints sounds like good lyrics to something…

    Can you have starving tyrants and rich saints? What would that take?