Charles Lester

There is a rumor that socialists, communists and other ethnic variants have been very successful at spreading: That capitalism depends on an “underclass,” or even goes so far as to create an underclass. It has always defied me—even when I was a staunch socialist—that this rumor could persist as well as it has. The most basic question—then and now—which comes to mind is: How can a capitalist make money, if everyone—or anyone—can’t afford what he sells? Put another way: How would a baker be "better off" if there are none—other than himself—capable of buying his bread? Logically speaking, it is easily understood that capitalism ultimately depends on there being as many people as possible capable of buying and/or producing things that are needed by other producers; as against some fabled "underclass." To demonstrate this, I think that it might be a good idea to take money out of the equation in order to simplify things a little. As an example, let’s invent a primitive tribe of hunter-gatherers that function as a capitalist band. Let’s further imagine that there are only five men within their society. One of them makes arrows; one makes knives; one builds and cooks; one makes lashings and fine tools; and the last is leader of the hunt. Each of these men—I assert—is better off producing as much as possible within the society; and none is better off trying to hold the other back. How could it be better—for the knife maker—that the arrow maker makes fewer arrows and bows? If there aren’t enough arrows, then, the number of kills that the band will be able to make will be fewer. How could it be better—for the arrow maker—if the knife maker made fewer knives? If there are not enough knives, it would take much longer to cut the animals up into much more manageable chunks. How would they skin the animal, so that they can maximize the amount of leather they have to make quivers, clothing and shelter? If these two men were to gang up on the builder/cook, in order to “squeeze” him; then, they would be left without a prepared meal. They would still have to build their hunting tools, AND NOW, cook for themselves—leaving little energy for them to do much else. Where would their hut come from; since, they have limited the number of huts that the builder can make? They would have to share a hut now—assuming that there's one available for them. How is this better off? No matter what the product is within their society, limiting its production would not be smarter, but an absurdity! An allegation no less absurd, than the one levied against the greatest producers within our society! Within the context of a capitalist system, there is an "occurrence" that seems to be quite common. But, before I label what it is, I will continue the previous example, and demonstrate how the "occurrence" works, before I let the cat out of the bag. Let’s now assume that the tribesman who is supposed to make lashings and fine tools decides—for whatever reason—that he will not be making many—if any—tools and lashings. How will he be able to justify his portion of the hunt? How will he be able to provide for himself the benefits of the cook and the hut maker? The answer is simple: He assassinates the character of the thinker within the group. Since intellectual expertise is the least tangible commodity, the commodity that in “good times” is most-easily taken for granted, and—quiet as it’s kept—the most enviable commodity, the should-be tool and lashings maker begins a campaign of distraction and subversion. He tells the other workers that they are the ones who keep the tribe going; and, that the leader of the hunt is exploiting their efforts. After all, what work does he do? Yes, he’s there at the hunt—but so are we! Why does he get as much as we do? We provide the tools for the hunt. We provide the meals that he eats. We provide the hut that he sleeps in at night. Why should his portion be as much as ours? And, by the way, who put him in charge? We must—if things are to be fair—organize ourselves and demand more of him! The tribesmen—in the example—are faced with a choice. Do they go along with the should-be toolmaker’s plan, or, do they disregard it as rubbish, and require that he “do his part” within their society? In order to be moral in their actions, the tribesmen have to justify what they do. If to none but themselves, they must, or face the iniquity of their actions head-on. In joining with the toolmaker, the tribesmen have to discount the values that the leader of the hunt brings into their lives. They have to eliminate: mind. After all, no one has to “work” for what they know. No one—they would say—has to “work” in order to be able to decide on anything correctly. The value of the leader’s decision-making ability has to drop out of existence, if the tribe is to force more work out of him, and be able to justify it—morally. If the tribesmen acknowledge the leader’s contributions, then they realize how much better off they are—if he’s good at his job. He consistently knows where to find prey. He consistently, and successfully navigates the terrain, after first studying it and understanding the geological and geographical information available to him. He intelligently delegates the various roles within the hunt, in order to maximize the energy that will be expended by the five hunters. He designs good strategies, in order for the hunters to be much more successful than they would have been, as compared to a plan that any of the others would have come up with. They all lack the expertise that he possesses. One path is capitalism; the other is socialism or its variants. One path recognizes all men’s right to what they produce, and that they function as traders within their society. The other enslaves some or all men to others. One is good. The other is evil. In one sentence, I can summarize: Socialism is the system of the power luster, who usurps power from men, by preying on their envy of others. Philosopher Ayn Rand states more completely: “There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or pre-historical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

And as I said earlier, Michael Vick was in the BUSINESS of dog fighting. It was within this context that the torturing and deaths of animals occurred. Without psychologizing, please explain to me the vast difference between what Michael Vick did and what any factory farmer, owner and employee of a slaughter house, pharmaceutical company, furrier, etc. does and what Vick did. So far the ONLY explanations offered have been psychological evaluations. The hard facts such as actions, evidence, statements, etc. are the same between Vick and his contemporaries in the business of exploiting nature's resources. At the risk of being calld "stupid" or "absurd" I ask you to attempt to do this without degrading into the realm of alleging to profess Michael Vick's psychological state as the difference. By the way, I consider it to be stupid and absurd to continually evade such a simple argument, rather than confess that there is no difference other than psychologizing.

I disagree that Chuck should forego his Eagle aspirations is all. Hey! I never talked about how fat yo mama is, I only referenced her expertise in those things "ethnic;" in fact, I would assert that she is an absolute expert, and that's why you are so quick to make "ethnic" accusations without any foundation. As always: You funny!

I'm with you on this one David!

Aside from the fact that my tax dollars subsidizes only one of them, yes there is! I refer you to The lesson that you are not learning is that--unless you demonstrate otherwise--you are not qualified to render any such judgement, nor do you have enough information to do so even if you were a qualified professional. See Psychology of Psychologizing by Ayn Rand and become a better man, dood.

I disagree with you. I am an Eagle Scout, and feel pride and a great sense of accomplishment at all the things I did in order to achieve it. I also relish the knowledge that I have, and pride myself on being able to live on Earth without any of the rest of you; although, I'm glad I don't have to! True; the prospective Eagle scout will no matter what still have his experiences so far, and will still have the knowledge, but he has still invested so much to go as far as he has gone. Chuck, all along you have said the pledge of allegiance, said the scout oath, been to meetings in churches, etc.. Forgive yourself, and recognize that these are things you chose to do in order to gain the things that you like and agree with; the knowledge, the memories, the adventure of it all! Get your final rank, and join the rest of us atheist and objectivist Eagle Scouts. I promise you that you won't wake up one day and hate yourself that you did. Scouts honor!

About psychologizing: Hopefully once you guys read some Ayn, you will check yourselves, and then, I won't have to. "Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket)." “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, "A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious. A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious. While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation." “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive." “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971

The fact that "Purdue" chicken drowns and electrocutes thousands and thousands of chickens every day to earn his money. Face it David, the principle is the same, and the fact that Vick has been jailed, and forced to pay animal shelters his income is a moral tragedy. I like dogs too, and although I can't say that I have never watched dogs "bang," I did not like it, nor did I go to the fights again. I have eaten chicken, beef, pork, and fish, although I have since become a vegan. I have a mink coat, and use drugs that were tested on animals still to this day. All of these things however, are irrelevant to the issue of property rights; unless, we are talking about my property. What Michael Vick does/did to his property is his business, and as long as there is such hypocrisy in how we apply and uphold property rights and individual rights, the impetus of those who slice away at our freedoms will continue to go unhampered. You can't have your freedom, and "shrug away" Michael Vick's too!

I don't make the kind of mistakes and misquotes that plague your posts Jake. Are you an objectivist or someone on this forum intent on discrediting Ayn Rand through subversion? In case you would consider yourself to be an objectivist, I will give you yet another Ayn Rand quote in the hopes that your soul may be saved: "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive." I "wonder" what your ulterior motive is. Just kidding, I'm pretty sure; so, there is no need for a confession here. On one hand, he psychologizes about the mental state of Vick, then, on the other hand he psychologizes about what the employees of Purdue are thinking. Man, Jake is quite the mind reader isn't he? How much money do you make with your awesome talent Jake? Now that that has been dealt with yet again, let's list the things that they have in common for anyone else as remedial as you seem to be: 1.)Both Vick (hereafter referred to as V) and Purdue (hereafter referred to as P) profit(ed) by the death of animals. 2.)Both V and P sell the product of animal cruelty. One does so in the form of entertainment, one does so in the form of food. However, both instances are for man's benefit, and are forms of the exploitation of nature; things that objectivists are supposed to uphold. 3.)There exists substitutes for animal food, as there exists substitutes for animal entertainment. These are the things that Vick and Purdue have in common that I was referring to (in case you were too slow to "get it"). Aside from your bootleg attempts at psychoanalysis, what else differentiates them within this context? As always: You silly! Perhaps a philosophy class or two would do you some good--if you ever were to try one. Your ability to address those things relevant vs. the irrelevant; the subjective vs. the objective; what's known vs. what's believed to be, are all lacking tremendously if we were to simply read any number of your posts on this board. You seriously lack even the most elementary philosophic understanding, and should--seriously--refrain from using the word. No I don't draw the line a molecules dood, nor do I consider the words of "scientists" about global warming 100% valid or relevant to man, and his relationship to the earth. Hopefully you can follow that one... duh.

EXACTLY! Apply the same principle to dog fighting, and you have your answer. I am not saying that everyone should enjoy or appreciate the "art" of dog-fighting; but, I do say that there is no way to totally understand the underlying motives of people that do, and it is outright wrong to pretend that we have such psychological expertise. Ostracise or choose not to associate with such people if you want; but, the condemnation and slander is a bit much, no matter how you feel about the canine species. In principle, there is no difference between Colonel Sanders and Michael Vick. In this regard the PETA people are correct.

How about people who love to watch a tornados destroying stuff?

The police should be hung for trying to punish this cab driver! Sickening.

How do "to those of us who would choose to shun him" for his alleged "moral crime" reconcile the inherent moral contradiction in doing so? How does what Michael Vick differ from Purdue Chicken? I know of one way, but no one is outright stating that difference, but are offering what are obvious rationalizations and otherwise contradicting premises. Can someone please step up the plate and do a decent job of explaining their reasoning on this matter. * What kind of "change" are you looking for that your local cattle slaughter house owner shouldn't make? * Why should Vick "change?" as it relates to his conviction? I am seeking a moral argument, not a legal one here. We all know--some better than others--that there exist(s) laws which are immoral, and wrong, so let's not go there.

Perhaps he is depraved, but I don't necessarily see it as such. Some people like to watch snakes eat rats, but I don't think that this makes them depraved, nor do I think that people wanting to watch dogs fight each other makes them obviously depraved. Personally, I tend to begin my psychoanalysis at the point where people harm other humans.

Do you say this about chickens, cows, pigs, and fish? How about the calves that become veal? Personally, I am pro-veal!