New York Congressman Peter King has recently gotten a lot of media attention for his scathing remarks concerning deceased entertainer Michael Jackson. But does he really have any room to talk?
Rep. King, in a rant on Youtube, declared that “there was nothing good about” him, complaining that the media was giving Jackson too much attention, and saying that the world was better off with Jackson dead. Those are some pretty big words, coming from a guy who sits on his fat thighbones all day, thinking up new ways to regulate and tax successful businessmen like Jackson, while living in high style off taxpayer dollars.
Regardless of your feelings about Jackson’s aesthetic choices or your opinion regarding the dismissed accusations against him, Jackson was one of the most brilliant entrepreneurs to ever live, and he spent his life satisfying consumers’ demands like few capitalists ever did, making a lot of people’s lives better and happier while he lived.
The same won’t be said about the lazy sponge, Peter King. If anyone is overglorified or worthless to society, it would be the Congressman.
Isn’t Michael Jackson exactly the sort of person whose life we OUGHT to be celebrating…?
You are completely correct. In this Live by Theft Good vs Live by Production Bad world government at all levels has jammed down our throats, we should expect this from our rulers who have always been jealous of Jackson for his talent and wealth. I find it interesting that more parasites like Peter King have not jumped into this.
I prefer Prince (especially the Batman soundtrack). So, I can’t say I really liked MJ’s musical style. But, I can state that I think he was innovative in his use of cinematic music videos (like Thriller), which turned music videos into more of an art than just a blind promotional tool.
How is concert revenue any less governed by IP law than CD revenue? For instance, only the Rolling Stones can legally perform a Rolling Stones concert, just like only they can put a Rolling Stones album on the market.
The man paid 20 million dollars in order to avoid court; is this something an innocent man would do? The children could perfectly describe his penis. If you want to worship him, go ahead; count me out.
He was a singer/dancer and celebrity, not really what I would think of as an ‘entrepeneur.’ He was just cash-rich for a time, and ended up millions in debt. This happens to a lot of such people: Boy George, Lenny Dykstra, Bernie Kosar. They don’t have wealth, just cash flow. When the cash stops, it all comes crashing down.
The concerts he was preparing for were part of a financial work-out. He was a 50-year old drug user in terrible health–he wasn’t going to survive getting ready for a 6 mile run, much less a grueling series of concerts.
If a long, drawn-out, and potentially much more expensive court case that, with its high publicity could do far more damage to your image, was the alternative, then, yes, it would make perfect sense for a man in his position to settle the issue privately, outside of the government court system.
And, as I understand it, the “strip-search” did NOT provide a definitive match with the child’s description.
And, as I also understand it, the guy who instigated the whole slew of allegations against Jackson, Evan Chandler, was recorded in a phone call boasting about how all he wanted to do was ruin Jackson’s reputation, how he didn’t care whether he won or lost the court case because he won either way, and how he didn’t care at all how it might affect his son, which makes me think that it was probably due to Mr. Chandler’s desire for using the government court system as a medium for robbing Jackson of his wealth, and I wouldn’t doubt if he wasn’t further motivated by jealousy that Jackson was acting as a better father figure for Mr. Chandler’s son than Mr. Chandler was himself. Furthermore, it’s also my understanding that Evan Chandler got his “confession” from his son after he administered to his son a powerful sedative that makes people very pliable. Personally, I would have trusted the information more if Chandler had used waterboarding to extract the confession. Plus, didn’t all the other 30 kids (plus Mr. Chandler’s wife) who had been over to Jackson’s house emphatically deny that Jackson had ever done anything sexual to them? But, I mean, really–come on–the man clearly had no sex drive. His kids probably aren’t even biologically his.
If I thought my kid had truly been molested by someone, I wouldn’t care how much money they gave me, I would do everything I could to put the guy in jail. Is accepting $20 million and not going to court something that someone who really believed Jackson had molested his child would do?
As Mises defined it, an entrepreneur is one who uses scarce means to achieve profits, and is the one to whom the profit or losses of an undertaking first redound. Just because Jackson didn’t manage every facet of his operation himself doesn’t mean that Jackson didn’t act in an entrepreneurial role, and in a good one at that. The fact that he took drugs doesn’t change that.
I have a feeling that were it not for the almost certainly fraudulent legal charges against him, which cost him money to settle in the first instance, and then irreparably damaged his reputation for the forseeable future, Jackson would have remained much more financially successful. A very flawed, government monopolized legal system, which a couple defrauders took advantage of, seems to be the major contributing cause of Jackson’s financial woes. The fact that he landed the sold-out London mega tour after all he’s trudged through is proof enough of his entrepreneurial skill, let alone being the #1 best selling musician of all time. Like I said earlier in the thread, I was never a fan of Jackson’s music, but I saw a brilliant capitalist, and a tirelessly persevering hard worker.
sorry your thread got hijacked freiheit. you were making a sincere point contrasting entrepeneurship , the economic means, with the political means; and somehow its turned into a ‘media circus’ of ‘informed opinion’
The man was not-quite-right in the head, and he was foolishly–childishly–naive about adult-minor relationships, I’ll give you that, but the point I was trying to make was pointing out the irony of politicians (of all people) calling Jackson a worthless thorn in society’s side, and criticising the media for celebrating Michael Jackson’s life. The dude was clearly a great entrepreneur, and had immeasurably more value to society than just about any politician ever did.
Just because a lot of people buy your product doesn’t mean you’re ‘great’ or of ‘immeasurable value’ to society. I can get rich producing pornographic films or selling cigarettes and cheap booze. All that means is I’ve met a lot of consumers’ preferences. It doesn’t mean I’m contributing to a sustainable, growing society. Somebody’s getting awfully rich selling all those things to Russians, but in 20 years all those things will result in an extinct nation. Bang up job, Mr. Entrepeneur.
And Jackson wasn’t ‘naive.’ He was ‘inappropriate,’ to put it mildly.