I think we SHOULD be glorifying Michael Jackson

[sicsempertyrannis]

@Esuric

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.

Regardless of what one thinks of MJ, I have always found that to be a laughable claim. I recall Dave Chappelle mocked that on his TV show a few years ago, “..I couldnt pick my own penis out of a line up”.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@Freiheit

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…?

Cultural conservatives and limousine liberals alike will always hate anything from the 80’s. It was a glorious time where no one gave into the finger wagging of people like Peter King about how we should live our lives. It was all about being an individual first, damn the collective to hell. Consumerism, fun, drugs, dancing, fashion, and anything else that signifies the grand pageantry of man’s power to tame his environment and look good doing it - that was what the 80’s were about. Michael Jackson being the king of that wonderful time period, it’s not surprising that some are less than thrilled with the heart warming display that people have given to MJ.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@nirgrahamUK

concert revenue is more libertarianly impressive than IP’d cd sales in my opinion…

Well… Back in the 80’s there wasn’t really an avenue for us to fight back on. It was records or nothing. I think if you tracked torrents to see highly downloaded artists, MJ would be up there.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@Byzantine

@Freiheit

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.

What makes you think people should give a damn about sustainable or “appropriate”? I care for none of it. Fun, not safety nor sustainability is the lixor of life.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@GilesStratton

@Byzantine

Well here is how you avoid that sort of thing: don’t have adolescent boys over for sleep-overs.

Fascist pig.

Oh, go hide in your small towns in rural America and enjoy your wonder bread.

[AJFrost]

@Byzantine

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.

So how else is ‘great’ or ‘immeasurable value’ decided? By placing your own subjective morals above the values of individual consumers?

[Torsten]

@Adam Frost

So how else is ‘great’ or ‘immeasurable value’ decided? By placing your own subjective morals above the values of individual consumers?

I’d place my own subjective capacity to evaluate above that capacity of average customers to do that. And I should add that I still do evaluation(pricing/prioritization) mistakes either. And so does any other human being, I’d presume.

[Byzantine]

@Wilmot of Rochester

Michael Jackson being the king of that wonderful time period,

False. It was David Byrne.

[JackCuyler]

@Freiheit

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.

I would think that someone other than the Rolling Stones putting on a Rolling Stones concert would be committing fraud.

[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)

[freiheit]

@JackCuyler

@Freiheit

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.

I would think that someone other than the Rolling Stones putting on a Rolling Stones concert would be committing fraud.

What I meant was, putting on a concert of Rolling Stones songs, which would still be governed by IP restrictions.

[ladyattis]

@Wilmot of Rochester

Cultural conservatives and limousine liberals alike will always hate anything from the 80’s. It was a glorious time where no one gave into the finger wagging of people like Peter King about how we should live our lives. It was all about being an individual first, damn the collective to hell. Consumerism, fun, drugs, dancing, fashion, and anything else that signifies the grand pageantry of man’s power to tame his environment and look good doing it - that was what the 80’s were about. Michael Jackson being the king of that wonderful time period, it’s not surprising that some are less than thrilled with the heart warming display that people have given to MJ.

And shitty music. Unless you count the Australian rock bands and some new wave bands.

[freiheit]

@Byzantine

@Freiheit

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.

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.

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?

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.

[freiheit]

@ladyattis

@Wilmot of Rochester

Cultural conservatives and limousine liberals alike will always hate anything from the 80’s. It was a glorious time where no one gave into the finger wagging of people like Peter King about how we should live our lives. It was all about being an individual first, damn the collective to hell. Consumerism, fun, drugs, dancing, fashion, and anything else that signifies the grand pageantry of man’s power to tame his environment and look good doing it - that was what the 80’s were about. Michael Jackson being the king of that wonderful time period, it’s not surprising that some are less than thrilled with the heart warming display that people have given to MJ.

And shitty music. Unless you count the Australian rock bands and some new wave bands.

Post-punk/new wave bands in the 80’s. Yummmm.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@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)

I would agree with this also, but that isn’t really the reason why I think we should all look at MJ as a role model

[JackCuyler]

@Freiheit

I was never really a fan of Jackson’s music, but “#1 best-selling musical artist worldwide” doesn’t lie. The market has spoken.

Actually, he’s the third best selling musical artist, behind the Beatles and Elvis Presley.

[Nitroadict]

@Freiheit

The market has spoken.

Oh, you mean those markets that aren’t free?

Yes, they’ve “spoken” for quite a number of “useful” things, like the companies that make terrible cars being bailed out to “compete” against foreign companies that make better made cars.

[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.

[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.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Byzantine

Crackheads value crack. Selling them crack doesn’t make you valuable to society

sure it does.