The Almighty Unions

[Seth]

Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.

I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.

I was directing the question at seth. Anyway, he said specifically, "Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.". That sounds wrong. Take drug laws for instance, it would seem to me that the individual right to do drugs, any drug really, is subject to popular vote.

It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated. It's the substance itself that's contraband. You have the "right" to consume any drug you wish, but the government has authority, under its police power, to regulate or ban the possession of nearly any substance or object in the interests of public peace and order. Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.

The analogy would be that while you have the right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT have the right to operate or discharge them anywhere you please, and the government is fully empowered, under it's police powers, to regulate how, when and where you may operate a firearm, in the interests of public safety. The same applies to drugs and alcohol. With alcohol, the government regulates who may sell it, under what conditions, and where, and it regulates how the consumer may consume it, and where. It forbids you from drinking alcohol in a public place, and it forbids you from being drunk in public or while driving. The level of regulation of other drugs depends on the drug, and can include an outright ban on possession of the substance if the legislature, in its representative wisdom, deems possession to be too dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare to be permitted.

Would you not have to elect a president that would start the ball rolling for federal legalization?

The President does not propose legislation. Any member of Congress, either in the House or the Senate, can draft and propose legislation. It's up to the representative democratic process as to whether such legislation is passed. Then the President has a chance to veto it. If he does, Congress can override his veto and the bill becomes law without the President's signature.

I disagree with CES about the propriety of the President being able to legitimately refuse to enforce validly passed legislation merely because he thinks a law is "unconstitutional." There's a thread discussing that legal issue here.

With the same example, a persons life and property are also effected by these laws.

Of course one's life and property are "effected" (sic) by laws. But being affected by a law is not the same thing as a "democratic" vote to remove or repudiate those rights. In the first place, laws affect everyone equally. A law regulating my use of private property for some police-power reason also affects your use of your property. I'm not talking about such things. I'm talking about you, and the other members of the community in which I reside getting together and "voting" to take my land away from ME because you, as a group, either want it or believe I'm unworthy of owning it.

Just seems funny an american talking about "Individual rights to life, liberty and property" and defending them to the death when you can go to prison for growing a plant.

I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument, but that liberals, socialists and progressives have no problem with the use and abuse of government regulatory authority because their entire political philosophy is based in the rejection of individual liberty and property.

You are aware that under Stalin, and Castro, and other socialist/Marxist/Communist societies, individually growing pot can be a capital offense, right?

The very essence of socialism in all its forms is authoritarianism, not anarchy or even Libertarianism. In all such systems, the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life, in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.

[Seth]

Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.

Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?

"Hey guys! Let's get all our brother Hutus together and go chop the arms and heads off all of those degenerate Tutsis, they don't deserve to live anyway!"

"Yeah, let's go!"

"Kool, I love chopping arms off of babies, let's go!"

That's every bit as much a "vote" as marking a ballot.

Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process....

doesn't matter, the state makes the laws and chooses which ones to enforce by prison sentences.

In the US, there is really no such thing as "the state." In the US, "the state" is actually "we, the People" acting through our democratically elected representatives, and what they enact the next legislature can repeal. Moreover, in many states, like Colorado, the People have the right to petition measures, including constitutional amendments, directly onto the ballot, which provides a check and balance against a legislature that is not compliant with the will of the people.

Sometimes the state will simply murder you. (waco as an example)

Yes, sometimes the state engages in miscarriages of justice like Waco and Ruby Ridge. All the more reason to take power away from government, not submit to it. The instances of such "state murder" in socialist societies vastly exceeds anything ever found in the US. Stalinism alone killed more than 40 million people precisely that way.

Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...

yes, quite. You're property can be seized. Simply by making money through the sale of drugs. All your "ifs" don't make any difference to the fact that the government CAN simply take away your property.

No, it can't "simply" take away your property, you (and your property) have full rights of due process of law under which you can challenge a seizure as being unjust or not legally supported. If your property is not the fruits of a crime, then the government CANNOT "simply take away your property."

Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.

More sloganism.

Hardly.

Everything you listed has exceptions and in most cases degrees.

By that you mean that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation, which is true. No right is absolute, not even the right to life. But you pose a false dilemma fallacy when you imply that because rights are subject to reasonable regulation, that this means that no one is free. Sure, there are "degrees" of freedom, that's part of civilization. The moral strength of any political system depends on how much it protects individual freedom and rights within the scope of ordered liberty.

As in some are "free'er" than others. Some are outright ignored (the right to substantive and procedural due process of law). I still can't see how "liberty" is a "right" when "liberty" doesn't even really exist.

Well, liberty exists as the root condition. In a society comprised of one human only, there are no legal or moral restraints at all, and liberty is absolute. Only when two or more humans come into contact is the liberty of both constrained to some degree or other in the interests of coexistence. To suggest that because rights may and indeed must be balanced where they conflict with the rights of others indicates that there is no liberty at all is simply, as you put it, sloganeering...anarchist sloganeering.

Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits.

Oh a personal attack. Wow...really? You're ideology and dogma doesn't stand up so you resort to the old personal attack. Predictable and pathetic.

Forgive me, I was improperly responding to your typical penchant for personal attacks on me in the past in a post where you did not do so. My error. In retrospect, I do appreciate your willingness to engage in some substantive discussion, finally, and so I must properly presume that like me, you are taking the position of political, legal and social ignoramus as a deliberate "persona" presentation for didactic reasons, perhaps to begin a discussion for the lurkers who may not be so well educated as you and I from the foundational beginnings.

So, let me rephrase with that in mind: "Not really, your arguments appear to be ignorant of fundamental legal, philosophical, political and social facts and arguments, so I hope I've been able to enlighten you as to how things actually are in the real world. With those facts in mind, I'm interested to see how your reasoning abilities work and the conclusions you draw from being educated in the basics."

I hope that's more acceptable.

[sandinista]

It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated.

either way, semantics.

Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.

I disagree. The effects of the drug trade are a RESULT of the criminalization of drugs.

I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument

It's also an argument from many many other political views besides libraianism.

You are aware that under Stalin, and Castro, and other socialist/Marxist/Communist societies, individually growing pot can be a capital offense, right?

reference?

the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life

Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states. Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.

...in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.

Not true. That's a propaganda fed view.

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states. Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.

Assuming arguendo that you are correct, what solution do you propose? Please make your answer something more explanatory than "stop having what we do and when we do it dictated by class,"or words to that effect.

[Seth]

It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated.

either way, semantics.

No, it's a serious distinction in law. You see, you don't have an absolute right to possess whatever you want in order to put it into your body...though you and I agree that perhaps you should.

Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.

I disagree. The effects of the drug trade are a RESULT of the criminalization of drugs.

en u

I happen to agree with you. But the legislature is the body that is empowered to make such judgments, and their judgment is presumptively constitutional until proven otherwise. And the fact is that the power to make such judgments has been upheld many times by the courts. The only way to change that is to change representatives, who can in turn change the law.

I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument

It's also an argument from many many other political views besides libraianism.

Well, I wouldn't say "many," and I certainly exclude all forms of socialism, which have as their fundamental precept a direct and explicit disregard for individual liberty and private property.

the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life

Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states.

That would be an erroneous attribution. Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one.

Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.

Class is not a function of capitalism.

...in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.

Not true. That's a propaganda fed view.

Absolutely true, as seen in places like Cuba and the Soviet Union. Indeed, as expounded by Marxists throughout history, such as Pol Pot in Cambodia.

[egbert]

The very essence of socialism in all its forms is authoritarianism, not anarchy or even Libertarianism. In all such systems, the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life,

Make an Emergency Tin Foil Hat

* 1

Grab a couple of pieces of aluminum foil. The ones in the trash that were used to cover leftover casseroles or wrap fresh fish will do just fine.
* 2

Place one piece of aluminum foil on your head from front to back.
* 3

Mash the foil down to conform to the shape of your head and fit as snugly as possible.
* 4

Take the second piece of aluminum foil and place across the top of the head from ear to ear.
* 5

Mash the second piece of foil down over the first piece making a quick tin foil hat that probably won't hold up for long but will do in a pinch.
* 6

Stand the two pieces of foil up and fold over at each end to make a cone shaped hat. This hat design will take a little more time, but is worth the extra effort.
* 7

Place the tin cone on the head and mash it all together above the head to seal out dangerous rays and deflect mind control waves outward.


Read more: How to Make a Tinfoil Hat | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-ti ... z1JFPHUnv2

[sandinista]

The very essence of socialism in all its forms is authoritarianism, not anarchy or even Libertarianism. In all such systems, the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life,

Make an Emergency Tin Foil Hat

* 1

Grab a couple of pieces of aluminum foil. The ones in the trash that were used to cover leftover casseroles or wrap fresh fish will do just fine.
* 2

Place one piece of aluminum foil on your head from front to back.
* 3

Mash the foil down to conform to the shape of your head and fit as snugly as possible.
* 4

Take the second piece of aluminum foil and place across the top of the head from ear to ear.
* 5

Mash the second piece of foil down over the first piece making a quick tin foil hat that probably won't hold up for long but will do in a pinch.
* 6

Stand the two pieces of foil up and fold over at each end to make a cone shaped hat. This hat design will take a little more time, but is worth the extra effort.
* 7

Place the tin cone on the head and mash it all together above the head to seal out dangerous rays and deflect mind control waves outward.


Read more: How to Make a Tinfoil Hat | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-ti ... z1JFPHUnv2

You should send one of those to seth and coito, I'm sure they would be forever grateful.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

Seth wrote:Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.



Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?



"Hey guys! Let's get all our brother Hutus together and go chop the arms and heads off all of those degenerate Tutsis, they don't deserve to live anyway!"

"Yeah, let's go!"

"Kool, I love chopping arms off of babies, let's go!"

That's every bit as much a "vote" as marking a ballot.

WTF does that have to do with anything? No one conspires to kill anyone in the US? WTF?

In the US, there is really no such thing as "the state." In the US, "the state" is actually "we, the People" acting through our democratically elected representatives,

Wow...just wow. No state eh? I know you don't believe that....followed by:

Yes, sometimes the state engages in miscarriages of justice like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

So the state, which does not exist, engages in miscarriages of justice. Seriously you are all over the map homey.

No, it can't "simply" take away your property, you (and your property) have full rights of due process of law under which you can challenge a seizure as being unjust or not legally supported. If your property is not the fruits of a crime, then the government CANNOT "simply take away your property."

So the state can't take your property UNLESS, the state takes away your property. OK. Crime is legislated and defined by the state.

perhaps to begin a discussion for the lurkers who may not be so well educated as you and I from the foundational beginnings.

who are these "lurkers" you always come back to?

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).

A fair summary, and basically I agree. Given the OP, I would like to emphasise the role of the unions, both currently (who else would be doing the picketting?), and historically (they were one of the major sources of pressure which, over time, lead to the variety of labour and health & safety laws) in safeguarding worker's rights in a modern industrial democracy. The current lack of freedom in China is a legacy of authoritarian marxist rule, still applied even with their adoption of some aspects of capitalism. Perhaps one day, a union movement akin to the Polish Solidarity will be an important component of change in China...

One thing that unions in the west could be doing more of is to assist the development of unions in 3rd world countries. One day, greedy global corporations will find there is no place to go that hasn't got an aware and organised labour force. Sure, they will still get much lower wages for some time, in comparison to the west, but they wont be a complete walk-over, either...

[sandinista]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).

A fair summary, and basically I agree. Given the OP, I would like to emphasise the role of the unions, both currently (who else would be doing the picketting?), and historically (they were one of the major sources of pressure which, over time, lead to the variety of labour and health & safety laws) in safeguarding worker's rights in a modern industrial democracy. The current lack of freedom in China is a legacy of authoritarian marxist rule, still applied even with their adoption of some aspects of capitalism. Perhaps one day, a union movement akin to the Polish Solidarity will be an important component of change in China...

One thing that unions in the west could be doing more of is to assist the development of unions in 3rd world countries. One day, greedy global corporations will find there is no place to go that hasn't got an aware and organised labour force. Sure, they will still get much lower wages for some time, in comparison to the west, but they wont be a complete walk-over, either...

Saying all of that, it should be remembered that those sweatshops are producing goods for western companies and consumers. It is the western companies that often smash the unions. These companies move to certain countries to avoid unions and decent wages. One example:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trans ... ombia.html

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).

A fair summary, and basically I agree. Given the OP, I would like to emphasise the role of the unions, both currently (who else would be doing the picketting?), and historically (they were one of the major sources of pressure which, over time, lead to the variety of labour and health & safety laws) in safeguarding worker's rights in a modern industrial democracy. The current lack of freedom in China is a legacy of authoritarian marxist rule, still applied even with their adoption of some aspects of capitalism. Perhaps one day, a union movement akin to the Polish Solidarity will be an important component of change in China...

One thing that unions in the west could be doing more of is to assist the development of unions in 3rd world countries. One day, greedy global corporations will find there is no place to go that hasn't got an aware and organised labour force. Sure, they will still get much lower wages for some time, in comparison to the west, but they wont be a complete walk-over, either...

Saying all of that, it should be remembered that those sweatshops are producing goods for western companies and consumers. It is the western companies that often smash the unions. These companies move to certain countries to avoid unions and decent wages. One example:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trans ... ombia.html

I agree, and consumer boycotts against the worst examples might do some good... As would assistance by international labour to their 3rd world fellow workers.

[Seth]

sandinista wrote:

Seth wrote:Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.



Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?



"Hey guys! Let's get all our brother Hutus together and go chop the arms and heads off all of those degenerate Tutsis, they don't deserve to live anyway!"

"Yeah, let's go!"

"Kool, I love chopping arms off of babies, let's go!"

That's every bit as much a "vote" as marking a ballot.

WTF does that have to do with anything? No one conspires to kill anyone in the US? WTF?

Not on a large scale, no. Certainly not on the scale of Rwanda or the Congo or Iran.

In the US, there is really no such thing as "the state." In the US, "the state" is actually "we, the People" acting through our democratically elected representatives,

Wow...just wow. No state eh? I know you don't believe that....followed by:

Yes, sometimes the state engages in miscarriages of justice like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

So the state, which does not exist, engages in miscarriages of justice. Seriously you are all over the map homey.

Well, I should said "agents of the government perpetrate..."

No, it can't "simply" take away your property, you (and your property) have full rights of due process of law under which you can challenge a seizure as being unjust or not legally supported. If your property is not the fruits of a crime, then the government CANNOT "simply take away your property."

So the state can't take your property UNLESS, the state takes away your property. OK. Crime is legislated and defined by the state.

Now you're just pettifogging. Bye.

[Seth]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).

A fair summary, and basically I agree. Given the OP, I would like to emphasise the role of the unions, both currently (who else would be doing the picketting?), and historically (they were one of the major sources of pressure which, over time, lead to the variety of labour and health & safety laws) in safeguarding worker's rights in a modern industrial democracy. The current lack of freedom in China is a legacy of authoritarian marxist rule, still applied even with their adoption of some aspects of capitalism. Perhaps one day, a union movement akin to the Polish Solidarity will be an important component of change in China...

One thing that unions in the west could be doing more of is to assist the development of unions in 3rd world countries. One day, greedy global corporations will find there is no place to go that hasn't got an aware and organised labour force. Sure, they will still get much lower wages for some time, in comparison to the west, but they wont be a complete walk-over, either...

There's a fine line between legitimate union activity to secure basic worker rights and safety in a country where the rule of law and worker protections do not exist, and a circling right back to leftist totalitarianism by the unions in an attempt to deconstruct "greedy global corporations."

One must keep in mind that it is capitalism and those "greedy global corporations" that provide the jobs that the unions depend upon to employ their members in order that the unions can extract dues from its members in order to engage in socialist deconstruction of the "greedy global corporations" that are the fuel for the economic engine.

In short, labor unions outlive their usefulness and become cancerous and destructive to the economy when they metastasize from protectors of the rights and safety of workers into political engines intent on forwarding socialist political objectives. When unions become a cancer on society, they must be excised and destroyed. So long as they are benign and useful, as they are in countries where basic worker protections are not part of the culture and law, they have a legitimate and useful role.

[Gallstones]

I think it is more likely that some unions got too big for their britches--adopted the same attitude of hubris and greed the business owners have been famous for--and made some mistakes; like people do.

Acknowledging that some overstepped does not mean they have outlived their usefulness. The dance between employer (profit) and employee (wages) is going to go on, each hoping to have a share of the advantages that come up. That means that unions will continue to have a place and be useful.

For all our smarts, humans are still a species of stupids.

[Seth]

I think it is more likely that some unions got too big for their britches--adopted the same attitude of hubris and greed the business owners have been famous for--and made some mistakes; like people do.

Acknowledging that some overstepped does not mean they have outlived their usefulness. The dance between employer (profit) and employee (wages) is going to go on, each hoping to have a share of the advantages that come up. That means that unions will continue to have a place and be useful.

For all our smarts, humans are still a species of stupids.

Correct. The problem with unions only arises when the union BOSSES start playing politics instead of concentrating on negotiating for their members. Or when the unions represent public employees, in which case the "dance" you speak of is actually not a dance at all, it's government employees negotiating their pay with government bureaucrats who have no personal interest in saving the taxpayer's money like a private business owner's interest in preserving his profits.