majevska: The fact that someone gives consumers what they want doesn't logically imply an imperative to think highly them or their consumers. What you're implying is that whatever the majority likes is by definition good. Obama satisfies people's desire to feel all warm, fuzzy, cool, guilt-free or whatever by being a charismatic half-negroid president, yet you don't feel the need to commend him for making people happy. (yeah I know he's a government official while Jackson isn't)
The fact that someone gives consumers what they want doesn't logically imply an imperative to think highly them or their consumers. What you're implying is that whatever the majority likes is by definition good. Obama satisfies people's desire to feel all warm, fuzzy, cool, guilt-free or whatever by being a charismatic half-negroid president, yet you don't feel the need to commend him for making people happy. (yeah I know he's a government official while Jackson isn't)
So true. And then we can take the government aspect and say democracy fills the needs of people to feel important, free, correct,protected, validated, etc. Or going green for that matter is the same thing as Obama/Democracy.
Liking an entrepreneur just because he is from the private sector seems a bit dangerous. And GLORIFING someone for just that reason seems particularly dangerous. It echos "the greater good" cause. The greater good not only scares the dickens out of me, but I have no need for it. If you like Michael Jackson as a performer/person/whatever fine, but I am of the opinion it is in bad taste to turn people into "causes". It would probably be wiser and much less bloody to concern ourselves with individuals than the good cause or mankind.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Byzantine:but no society can survive moral degradation.
Moral according to what standard? Sorry, I am a Randian, especially in terms of ethics, so I prefer a eudaemonic means to understanding ethics over blind social peering. As social peering without a rational basis for the given peering is in itself a terrible device that has led us to even the Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Italian Fascists of the modern age. And in earlier ages, the destruction of cultures on a scale still jarring to the mind is strongly linked to blind social peering.
In terms of MJ's lechery, there's no doubt to anyone's judgment on it. So, I don't find MJ the pinnacle of a free market in music, rather he depended on the same Statist system of trademarks, intellectual property, and controlled media outlets (via the FCC and other agencies) to rise to power. And the fact, unlike many of his own peers (Madonna comes to mind) he spent it all, rather than saving and investing (again Madonna, and one can add Gene Simmons, and even Vicent Furnier (aka Alice Cooper)), so his estate stands as a hollow shell with a pretty facade, and nothing more. One could say the testament of MJ, the man, is one of decadence untempered by reality for which others paid dearly (Sony Records, especially). So, no I won't be mourning his passing. His work was mere glamour worked by a poor magician.
Byzantine:Crackheads value crack. Selling them crack doesn't make you valuable to society.
But the seller of such substances is merely filling the need by another, no matter how stupid the buyer may be. So, the economics be blind to moral judgments, of course.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Byzantine: Freiheit: LOL! Yeah, it's porn, cigarettes, and booze that are leading to the disintegration of Russian society, not the leviathan police state that's got them in shackles. Nice try, Mark A. Matthews. People have maintained their dignity and cultural vitality in the face of horrible government oppression, but no society can survive moral degradation. If offering things to people that they value doesn't make your services valuable to society, then why don't you tell me what does? Crackheads value crack. Selling them crack doesn't make you valuable to society. Southern plantation owners valued slaves. Selling them slaves didn't make slave auctioneers valuable to society.
Freiheit: LOL! Yeah, it's porn, cigarettes, and booze that are leading to the disintegration of Russian society, not the leviathan police state that's got them in shackles. Nice try, Mark A. Matthews.
People have maintained their dignity and cultural vitality in the face of horrible government oppression, but no society can survive moral degradation.
If offering things to people that they value doesn't make your services valuable to society, then why don't you tell me what does?
Crackheads value crack. Selling them crack doesn't make you valuable to society. Southern plantation owners valued slaves. Selling them slaves didn't make slave auctioneers valuable to society.
Again, to your rural village in middle America with your white bread. Off with you!
Your degredation is another man's fun. And actually, I do think drug dealers are valuable pieces of society. We provide a substance that makes parties, experiences, and people much more enjoyable.
existence is elsewhere
Byzantine: Freiheit: And "inappropriate" is a completely and utterly subjective concept. Inappropriate in regards to what? Your personal preferences? Well, la dee frickin da, aren't you special. "Inappropriate" as in, "It's inappropriate for men in their 40's to have sleep-overs with adolescent boys and get in bed with them." Don't know what kind of twisted world you inhabit.
Freiheit: And "inappropriate" is a completely and utterly subjective concept. Inappropriate in regards to what? Your personal preferences? Well, la dee frickin da, aren't you special.
"Inappropriate" as in, "It's inappropriate for men in their 40's to have sleep-overs with adolescent boys and get in bed with them."
Don't know what kind of twisted world you inhabit.
I'm not gay or fourty, so I can't speak to this. However, it always seems an appropriate dream for most men to lay in a bed of young, school girls. Why? Because sex is seductive and it feels so good. I don't care if some conservative joke like Glenn Beck or Peter King want us to feel restrained and guilty for our lusts.
Like greed. Lust is good.
Wilmot of Rochester:Like greed. Lust is good.
Then by all means indulge your lusts. Let me know how your life turns out.
Byzantine: Wilmot of Rochester:Like greed. Lust is good. Then by all means indulge your lusts. Let me know how your life turns out.
Careful; if you have moral objections to something, you might be a conservative out to get others!
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
My "lust" for knowledge has given me a joy that I can't always condense into words. :-P
Pretty great, so far.
Nitroadict: Byzantine: Wilmot of Rochester:Like greed. Lust is good. Then by all means indulge your lusts. Let me know how your life turns out. Careful; if you have moral objections to something, you might be a conservative out to get others!
No, not out to get someone. Just slightly annoying - like any finger-wagging busy body.
Wilmot of Rochester:No, not out to get someone. Just slightly annoying - like any finger-wagging busy body.
Hey, I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.
Byzantine: Wilmot of Rochester:No, not out to get someone. Just slightly annoying - like any finger-wagging busy body. Hey, I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.
I'd still hit it up to the sixth frame. Maybe again at the ninth. Seventh and eighth look worse than the ninth for some reason.
In response to the OP. If the individual celebrates and receives his value scale solely based on the demand of those around him, i.e. the market, then he really hasn't created an individual aesthetic or demand.I am not familiar with the Peter King remarks, but I would interpret his critique as a moral advertisement, entirely geared towards persuading people. He is not calling for government action or the inclusion of the state, and thus he is expressing thoughts as an individual. In the same way someone could make a moral argument against the pornography industry... People purchase porn - buy drugs - these are things demanded by the people who put together the purchase, but demands can be changed. This is the purpose of reason and debate; it is designed to influence people's demands.
I personally hate Michael Jackson's music - and I am not going to celebrate when he sells out a concert of someone buys a CD. My point is, I should not rejoice over the fact that you demand something, nor should I rejoice over the fact that a majority demand the same thing.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap