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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
