Would anyone care to help


Recommended Posts

Hi guys

I self published my book on Sept 18th of this year and I'm in need of reviews. If anyone has the time and desire to read my book and review it (perhaps on Amazon or Good Reads) I will send them a free copy. I can send it in any digital format if you have a Nook, Kindle, etc or I can send a hardcopy. Okay so what is the book about?

Really it was inspired by Atlas Shrugged though it is not about Objectivism. I was writing a 4 part non fiction series on my life philosophy (just got back to completing it) when I read Atlas Shrugged and was blown away by the idea that you can write a philosophy into an entertaining novel- so I did. Took me a year and a half with the editing and the final is 734 pages long. The premise is: what would it take to get rid of all money?

The crowd on OL may immediately cry Socialist Pig! But no, I even write a section of the book that explains why Socialism will never ever work. No, I don't replace capitalism with communism or anything of the sort, in fact, the money-less society never appears in the book. The book takes us through a series of worldly events that then change and prepare society enough that a conversation can take place at the end of the book as to if it is now possible to live without money.

As I wrote in the Meet and Greet section of this site, I am a supporter of freedom, not necessarily a supporter of capitalism and I plan to write a post on why I think capitalism is not as free as I would like it to be (not even lassiz faire) but I'm also a realist. My solution will not happen without extreme technological advances and my book does take place in the future, reflecting that.

Here is the description from the back:

Not a tale of utopia, this story instead follows the ordinary lives of nine men and women, their friends and family, over a 150 year time-span as they produce, control or are influenced by two very important inventions and the law surrounding them which change the environment enough that we are finally able to ask the question-

Is it time that we end capitalism?

I think that its a good story that covers both sides of the debates more realistically then Ms Rand's works (though I loved both novels) and if you would like to review it for me or have additional questions, please let me know : )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi guys

I self published my book on Sept 18th of this year and I'm in need of reviews.

You should post links. What's the book's title?

The crowd on OL may immediately cry Socialist Pig!

I wouldn't call you a Socialist Pig. You seem to be more of a Mixed Economy Platypus.

I think that its a good story that covers both sides of the debates more realistically then Ms Rand's works (though I loved both novels) and if you would like to review it for me or have additional questions, please let me know : )

Your book sounds like it's worth a look.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dldelancey, thank you for the purchase, I would have sent you the book for free but ill take the sales anyway!

Jonathan, the title is The True End of Money and The Path to Free. I can send you a copy if you'd like

Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek, like I said, I support independent authors. Also, if I don't like your book, I will feel less guilty about saying so if I have actually paid for the book. haha

J, re: Mixed Economy Platypus? LOL. Literally. I had to explain to a co-worker what I was laughing about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom without capitalism?

In Objectivism, 'freedom' means absence of physical coercion. In Objectivism, 'capitalism' means a social system based on recognition of rights. Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/

How can you have absence of physical coercion without recognition of rights?

A world without money?

Objectivism glorifies money to high heaven. Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/

From the point of view of Objectivism, that novel does not seem very promising.

Sounds like Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jts, I would say that my book would be interesting to Objectivist because it proposes a system of greater freedom then we currently have and it was written with absolute realism and reason in mind, but of course you don't have to read it : )

Objectivism glorifies money to high heaven. Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/

this is where we probably do have a difference of opinion. I thought the primary goal of Objectivism was freedom and that capitalism simply was the most successful method of implementing it. Sounds like you may be saying that the primary goal is capitalism and that system just happens to have a degree of freedom with it so ... I guess that's good too.

I define freedom as an ability to DO what I would like (outside of harming others) during my life not as the ability to have OTHERS do things for me. This is how I see a capitalism, it has two components of freedom and one is not needed.

1. If I have enough money then I am free from certain pressures and I can pursue what I would like.

2. If I have enough money then I can have (through trade) or make (through wage labor forced upon others through threat of starvation) others do things I would like.

In my system, we have no need for number 2 and number 1 is the most important. I shouldn't call it a system though and it is in my explanation that you may see where I'm coming from. Capitalism, socialism, etc are economic systems that have evolved in an environment of scarcity. You may want to add human nature into the mix as well but I find that human nature has also evolved in the environment of scarcity. Any system that is created with the limits of a world full of limits (scarcity) mental or otherwise, will indeed be limited in freedom. I don't propose simply replacing the system, I propose replacing THE ENVIRONMENT. The Venus project is unrealistic because it expects people to mentally change a human nature that is predicated on an environment of scarcity. I would say that you can't expect people to have a mentality of abundance unless you actually have an environment of abundance. No, that doesn't mean putting a bunch of folks together in chain gangs who must feed and clothe the world--that could only occur through force. My book puts the means of unlimited production into each and every individual's hands where they can decide on a daily basis how much or how little they want. That is ultimate freedom. When someone does not have to rely on another for things, when they don't have to rely on another for a job, when the ONLY thing keeping an association with others going is purely the individual's desire. This is getting a bit far into my reasons as to why capitalism is not as free as I would like and I plan to put that post up in detail in the next few days.

I would like to describe to you in detail how my plan takes shape but I also don't want to ruin the story for dldelancey or others who would care to review the book for me. I will though communicate with you privately if you would like to discuss my ideas

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the primary goal of Objectivism was freedom and that capitalism simply was the most successful method of implementing it. Sounds like you may be saying that the primary goal is capitalism and that system just happens to have a degree of freedom with it so ... I guess that's good too.

Ayn Rand:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the primary goal of Objectivism was freedom and that capitalism simply was the most successful method of implementing it. Sounds like you may be saying that the primary goal is capitalism and that system just happens to have a degree of freedom with it so ... I guess that's good too.

Ayn Rand:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

right, so why did you say objectivism glorifies money to high heaven? Are you making fun of me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

right, so why did you say objectivism glorifies money to high heaven? Are you making fun of me?

I did point to a source. Click on this link and read everything about money.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/money.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When you posted the first link, it was directed at the home page, not at the money section.

2. My proposed futuristic system requires no savings, nor any of the other things that make money great in our current environment.

3. Im still not understanding your seeming double talk on the true goal being freedom and yest money being glorified to high heaven. The link provided only explains why money is useful in our current environment. But perhaps you are responding on your phone and don't have the leisure to provide a more detailed response. I know I've been there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When you posted the first link, it was directed at the home page, not at the money section.

2. My proposed futuristic system requires no savings, nor any of the other things that make money great in our current environment.

3. Im still not understanding your seeming double talk on the true goal being freedom and yest money being glorified to high heaven. The link provided only explains why money is useful in our current environment. But perhaps you are responding on your phone and don't have the leisure to provide a more detailed response. I know I've been there...

1. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is very useful. Type anything you want into it and it tells you everything Objectivism says about that topic.

2. If there is no money, then trade is reduced to barter. Not the best way to trade. Also without money, how do you have a price system? Without a price system, producers have no way of knowing how much to produce. Perhaps your futuristic world has replicators that do with physical objects what 'free software' (or open source) does with software. Then little or no trade would be needed.

3. I see no conflict between reason and money, or between individualism and money, or between capitalism and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise is: what would it take to get rid of all money?

Why would you want to get rid of money when it is the sole neutral impartial objective medium of exchange?

Is it time that we end capitalism?

Your wish is already coming true. :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moralist,

two things. in the environment that I have in my book, money is not required. So why keep it around if it has no essential use. Sure it could be kept around out of tradition or because it puts people at ease or whatever, but it wouldnt have an actual need.

Second, I do find a problem with money (and I mean the physical use of currency of any sort) and that is what appears to be an unstoppable destiny, one in which the money becomes, in the minds of the population, a ends in and of itself, instead of being a means to an end. It becomes almost a worshiping of money and my problem with that is that people no longer seek and follow their natural inclinations, gifts and/or dreams. Instead the become mentally enslaved to a lifetime mission of mere acquisition of more and more currency in order to either keep up with the Joneses (keeping score as many wealthy individuals have called it) or simply in order to survive in a society that has based all the rules around the acquisition of more and more currency. I'm much more a believer in productivity but certain elements of today's society have shown a strong belief in wealth without production. Example: patent trolls. Im sure you are familiar with the concept, these are companies that purchase patents NOT so that they can bring new and exciting things to life, but merely to sue others. They only want the money, it has become the driving factor when I feel the money should come as a result of hard work and production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I do find a problem with money (and I mean the physical use of currency of any sort) and that is what appears to be an unstoppable destiny, one in which the money becomes, in the minds of the population, a ends in and of itself, instead of being a means to an end. It becomes almost a worshiping of money and my problem with that is that people no longer seek and follow their natural inclinations, gifts and/or dreams. Instead the become mentally enslaved to a lifetime mission of mere acquisition of more and more currency in order to either keep up with the Joneses (keeping score as many wealthy individuals have called it) or simply in order to survive in a society that has based all the rules around the acquisition of more and more currency. I'm much more a believer in productivity but certain elements of today's society have shown a strong belief in wealth without production.

Thanks for broaching such an interesting topic, Derek... because it is one which is fundamental to life. :smile:

From your description, your problem is actually not with money itself, which is both inanimate and amoral, but is with a choice to relate to that inanimate amoral object in a certain way that you find distasteful. This external approach is similar to guns, with a belief that the existence of guns makes people behave badly, and if they could be completely eliminated from society, people would behave better.

While I share your aversion to worshipping money as an end in itself, because of the truth of the love of money being the root of all evil. My approach differs from yours, by my not seeking externally to change how others freely choose to relate to money by eradicating it, but instead by making my own free choice of how I relate to money. Because what others choose does not affect my own personal choice in the least, nor does it affect the consequences of my own free choice. I will harvest exactly what I have planted regardless of what anyone else does or does not reap. So you see, my focus is inward on learning how to mindfully refine my own life, instead of being focused outward on trying to change others and their lives as if that in turn would change mine.

So in my view, money is simply a useful practical tool to be put to good use, whether it's to buy the enjoyment of a piece of gum... or the enjoyment of a home.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man may be smaller than his money" ('The money speech', AS)

I'm pretty much in agreement with moralist's assessment of the worship of money. It is I think, a side-effect of collectivism that the use of the tool of wealth to better one's life, and the lives one holds dear, has become all about ostentation and power lust, if not a quasi-religion.

Derek, you have put your concerns honestly, I feel. At bottom, I gather you find fault with a system that doesn't release the artist (writer, inventor, philosopher, etc.) to pursue his or her talents and aspirations from the burden of financial survival.

Do I have it right?

This was something I believed, once, but then became aware of its fundamental flaws. The most basic of them is that for all those vocations, reality is meat and drink. To be distanced from the struggle of existence - especially when one is subsidized by the State, where one gradually compromises one's unique vision and independence in favour of glorifying State and Society* - is to slowly destroy an artist's inspiration, and therefore his consciousness. (Art and literature of Soviet Russia a case in point.)

There's no easy answer, and somewhere I recall Rand soberly acknowledging the hard lot of the artist (in an interview) and suggesting one possibility, of him finding an admiring patron to support his work until he begins selling.

*(I've personally witnessed and been involved in this 'Who pays the piper, calls the tune' syndrome here in my country, a country which would promote and subsidize traditional African culture, solely - and in the process, sacrificing "decadent, colonist, Eurocentric" art forms: in music, theatre and ballet.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek, you have put your concerns honestly, I feel. At bottom, I gather you find fault with a system that doesn't release the artist (writer, inventor, philosopher, etc.) to pursue his or her talents and aspirations from the burden of financial survival.

Do I have it right?

This was something I believed, once, but then became aware of its fundamental flaws. The most basic of them is that for all those vocations, reality is meat and drink. To be distanced from the struggle of existence - especially when one is subsidized by the State, where one gradually compromises one's unique vision and independence in favour of glorifying State and Society* - is to slowly destroy an artist's inspiration, and therefore his consciousness. (Art and literature of Soviet Russia a case in point.)

yes, you have it right though I don't constrain my view just to the plight of the artist. I truly feel that the vast majority of people have natural inclinations to certain areas of productivity whether it is building houses or building crossword puzzles. Or demolishing homes or solving crossword puzzles. I also believe strongly that the vast majority of people cannot pursue their passions or, whats worse, don't even know where their passions lay because society has pushed most people into the relatively few industries that make money. Example would be the hoards of mathematical geniuses that exit the world's most prominent universities and go directly to wall street, do not pass go, but please collect your 200,000 dollars. I could care less how much those guys make but I'm certain that if not for the allure of wealth, which a society that worships money has created, many of these individuals would have used their considerable talent for other things. Who knows what. (just clarifying, I'm sure you really do understand my position)

I also agree with your second paragraph of the above quote, that survival is reality. This is why my focus and philosophy of the book is on how to relive the burden of survival so that we can concentrate on our passions. Again, my book is fictional but I think it is possible in the future and I think I wrote a realistic story on how it could happen. I tried my best to include views from multiple personalities. I tried to never exaggerate those personalities (as unfortunately Mrs Rand did). I look at what I believed to be a natural progression of technology and the how the world would react to it. Yes, I would be the first to say that my "Path to Free" only occurs by very specific events (such as a pivotal choice that occurs in the third Era) but its all within the realm of possibility. Also I think I included multiple other topics of discussion as the individuals live their ordinary lives. So... you wanna read it????!!!

As a realist, I'm well aware of reality and I don't deal in ideals. I may bring up extremes from time to time in order to logically work my way through thought exercises but never ideals. Therefore my philosophy is only theoretical and I agree wholeheartedly that until such time that we can change the environment of scarcity, perhaps through the two technological advances that occur in my book, I believe that capitalism is the fairest, most reasonable system that can be used to offer a sense of freedom to the citizens of the world (even though it is not a complete freedom)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you, Derek, but I think you don't place enough responsibility in the hands of individuals. Those guys and gals who end up on Wall Street make their choices. No one forces them down that path. No one forces them to stay on that path once they are on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you, Derek, but I think you don't place enough responsibility in the hands of individuals. Those guys and gals who end up on Wall Street make their choices. No one forces them down that path. No one forces them to stay on that path once they are on it.

Bullseye.

The freedom to do what's right cannot exist without the freedom to do what's wrong.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about force? I'm saying that there are real (financial, peer) pressures to choosing wall street vs theoretical physics (or whatever else). Of course their is a choice but of course their is also real pressures. Same as their is a real choice to break whatever government regulations that may be dreamt up but the existence of that choice doesn't negate the pressures and consequences. Im for choice and I belive in consequences, I just wish that certain pressures didn't exist (same as everyone here wished that governmental or collectivist pressures didn't exist) because then choice could be made more freely.

Anyway, I know several of you already understand my stance. You don't have to agree but maybe if you read..... My book?

: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about force? I'm saying that there are real (financial, peer) pressures to choosing wall street vs theoretical physics (or whatever else). Of course their is a choice but of course their is also real pressures.

A defining quality of the character of a man is his ability to resist the pressures of the world... the ability to choose to do what he sees fit as being good and right, regardless of what anyone else chooses to do. Ayn Rand expressed that quality in her protagonists, while demonstrating the antagonists to be immoral invertebrates who slithered around leaving trails of slime because their blob shape was solely derived from the pressures of the world around them.

This world is like an ocean and we are deep sea divers who need to constantly develop and refine our equipment to equalize our internal pressure to meet the crushing external pressure of the depths because our existence as decent human beings demands nothing less.

Your view proposes outside-in economic approaches... while in my view the only economic approach that actually works is inside-out.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the reason our views/solutions differ is because we have different goals in mind.

I don't doubt that, Derek. For my goal is to enjoy my God given freedom in an unfree world... and that goal is not in mind, but in actions. It's an interesting contrast in that your method depends on the top down external pressure of collective social engineering to implement it... while my method rests upon the internal foundation of individual independent autonomous action.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now