<<I could never understand Kant...>>

Dear Doc,

Who could? A skilling scheister's just a scheister / Skilling is a scheister too / The thing I can't remember, / does he use one el or two?

As to the rest of it: As far as I can tell, Kant's moral imperative is a recitation of Jesus' golden rule. Only Kant tries to express it in terms permitted under a critique of reason, which limits claims of reason to make all sorts of statements about "the way things are." It occurs to me that the economics of criminal behavior require the majority of people in economic community maintain the concept of property. If we were *all* criminals, there would be no one to steal from. Con men need saps. Unproductive ventures, like the Mafia, in so far as they *are* unproductive, require the rest of us to be productive in order that they (the crooks) can accrue wealth. Most of the rest of us who are gainfully employed are so employed under conditions of duress. A part of that duress is real: don't work, don't eat. But the conditions giving rise to that particular equation (the left hand side, "don't work") are arrived at by some sort of agreement -- not of law, but of force. Kant's imperative asks us to behave in a way which may be contrary to our own interests as individuals. It is for the good of society. And society not only gives rise to the possibility of law, but of criminality. It is a good thing for con men, when most people behave as though they think Kant is on to something hot. Was Kant himself a con man? I don't know. He threw a splendid lunch, though.

I don't suppose that helps. Best I can do on a lark.

Fondest and warmest,
IP