I was first introduced to the writings of Karl Marx as a college student. What impressed me most was Marx the theoretician, not necessarily Marxism in practice. So what if a few Communist regimes had crumbled or collapsed under the abstract weight of his theories and surrendered to Capitalism? It was of no interest to me. Instead, there was something mysterious about "theory" itself, something virginal that could only be tainted in the realm of practicality. Startling to me, but not all too unrealistic, was the idea that economics played a critical role in the moral constitution of a people. Forget about the transcendental nature of God, the only lawgiver above the law was the economy. And what was at one point vague now became plainly obvious: what was best for the economy was best for the people. Maybe this isn't Marx in a nutshell, but this alone is what I gathered from his famous Communist Manifesto.

A couple years later and a little bit wiser, I sat my parents down to have a serious conversation. I had a decent job, was making decent money, and I was in a wonderful relationship. I told them how I planned to move into an apartment with my girlfriend. To my surprise, they didn't put up much of a fight. Maybe they knew that the statistics of two people living in premarital conditions were against me. Nevertheless, I was gone in February. Coming home one night to visit, and after many months of blissful cohabitation, I sat down to dinner with my mother and father. We casually crossed the subject of the economy, and then like some automatic speaker under the spell of some supernatural force, I blurted off a phrase that caused my father to pause and reflect: "Nature doesn't make people immoral, the economy makes them immoral."

Perhaps, some background to this conversation would help. My parents were obviously against two people living together before marriage. The point I was trying to express with my parents was that I would have married my girlfriend by then had it not been for the cost of such an affair. With the average wedding running anywhere from 10 to 20 thousand dollars, I knew I had some saving to do. Another point was that although I thought that weddings were dog and pony shows, I loved my girlfriend and knew her enough to know that she would like to have a fairly nice wedding. But making what I made and what she made, the possibility didn't exist at that time. Sure, we could have thrown together a rinky-dink affair, but this was a wedding—the word itself demanded respect—and I was the first to admit that I wanted to do it right. And "right" meant putting down some money. It bears repeating, I would have been married, had money not been a consideration.

To impose a price on the cost of love was in my mind, the ultimate act of treachery. It was in fact the limiting of certain inalienable and natural rights through the interference of the market. No longer was it a courtroom official or a priest that authenticated the marriage. A much more devious and abstract personality was refusing us our rightful act of commitment. Money was an exacting creditor.

However, you look at it, marriage seemed to balance on a moral issue. Remember, I wasn't complaining that my wedding wasn't happening in the south of France, nor was I too worried if it happened at the VFW. I was worried in principle. So when I found out this week that Mike Tyson the rapist, Mike Tyson the emotional disturbed recidivist was granted a boxing license in Washington D.C., it confirmed what I already suspected. Money talks. Of course, this isn't a startling revelation for many people, but for a young, idealist man throwing around what little weight he has, it meant everything.

I was on my way to work when Mike Brown of the D.C. Boxing and Wrestling Commission fielded questions from NPR's news correspondent Bob Edwards. After a few questions relating to Tyson's moral character, Brown explained to Edwards that the Tyson-Lewis fight could stimulate the faltering economy in Washington, D.C. And there it was! Never mind, the fact that a few strong political groups with just cause had protested the awarding of the license; the economic benefits outweighed the moral consequences. Brown went on to explain how some 5,000 jobs in the hospitality sector were lost following the events of September 11th. Estimates have the fight generating close to $1.5 million in revenue, the implication being that that money would go back into that sector to help revive those jobs. But this wasn't what Brown said, and in Washington making immoral decisions to create moral outcomes is always an issue of utility and a sign of the type of consequentialism that makes our country great. I can only think of those mafia guys who burn down their restaurants just to collect on the insurance.

Washington D.C. (the town as well as the political machine) always finds a way to benefit from the fallout that it has created! Maybe this is too extreme, but there is no denying that the United States is a country in which utilitarianism is alive and well. And no truism better suits this nation now than "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people." Certainly there is a bit of irony here, since weeks before Nevada revoked Tyson's boxing license. Nevada, you say? The fabled hub of immoral behavior. Was money NOT an issue? We may never know. Yet Washington has long been a cradle for corruption and immorality, so is it any wonder that in the city where so many lawgivers are above the law that one man's moral conduct as Brown himself called "indefensible" in light of his past should create so much opportunity for so many? Just ask Ken Starr and the crack staff of investigators who worked tirelessly to uncover the truth behind the Clinton scandal at a cost of millions to taxpayers, who thought the issue, had come and gone long ago. How many want to bet that most of that money wasn't spent on resources?

In closing, perhaps Nevada has, in a symbolic way, passed on the mantle of corruption to its East Coast neighbor. After all, the mayor of Las Vegas has promised to clean up his town's image and in some ways he has. In the end, Washington the town may not be so lucky. After watching the Washington political machine get away with it for so many years, one begins to feel like the younger brother in an anti-smoking commercial who finds his big brother whom he's always admired smoking, and rather than condemn him, asks for a cigarette himself.

Copyright © 2002 Frank S. Palmisano III. All Rights Reserved.

Frank S. Palmisano III is a resident of Nottingham, MD. He works as a technical writer for the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and just finished up a teaching assignment as an adjunct professor of English at Towson University. He is a past contributor to *spark-online, and his poetry can be read in many journals across the United States. His first book of poetry tentatively titled "Synaptic Misfires and Other Tortured Tales From the Left Brain" is due out this year through JVC Books.