Are you a moral person?

[untermensche]

While the dictators get a dictator wage.Looks like you tried to supply a definition of what is a capitalist dictatorship. Actually you wound up describing what you believe such a dictatorship does. Your transition from a request of 'what is' to an answer of 'what does' is the problem with your presentation. How are we to work out operations when you only supply effects.

Possibly you misunderstood. I'll revise my request to what is a capitalist dictatorship. Specifically What is it about capitalism that makes it, in your mind a dictatorship. More specifically what are the mechanisms, the devices, the structure of capitalism that make it a dictatorship.

What is it about selling property using coin within a society that makes it a dictatorship and what is your construction of what is a dictatorship, again, mechanisms, devices, and structure of dictatorship.

I'll be clear "let the buyer beware' is not capitalism.

Let mer focus you further, can you justify why Adam Smith's capitalism

Adam Smith focused on the role of enlightened self-interest (the "invisible hand") and the role of specialization in promoting the efficiency of capital accumulation.

becomes Carl Marx' capitalism

it is defined by the creation of a labor market in which most people must sell their labor power in order to make a living. As Marx argued (see also Hilaire Belloc), capitalism also differs from other market economies that feature private ownership through the concentration of the means of production in the hands of a few or many

How does one justify few-many when many are owners and many are workers?

A dictatorship is a power structure.

A structure where all real power is in the hands of an individual or small group.

A structure where those that are not the dictators have no real power within the organization.

They either submit or leave.

That is dictatorship.

It is immoral and it is destroying the planet.

Adam Smith mentioned the "invisible hand" once in 'Wealth of Nations'.

He used it to describe what happens when you let a dictator gain wealth and power.

Smith says that because the rich man will spend locally the surrounding society will benefit because there is a rich dictator.

Modern travel has enabled the dictator to live wherever they want and spend wherever they want.

Smith's invisible hand does not exist anymore.

And US capitalist dictators are turning the US into a third world nation.

All the people ever had to stand up to the dictators were unions.

Thus the unions were attacked demonized and destroyed.

And with them the US thriving and prospering middle class.

 

[fromderinside]

Many professionals working in the private sector are represented by professional associations rather than unions. While some categories are represented by unions and these categories are usually leaders in negotiations the fact remains that organized representation among professionals is much higher than represented by labor data.

Unions have always been demonized and attacked with the aim to destroy them. What has really caused representation by unions to drop is automation. Aren't you really getting tired of sounding the same old sour notes from your defective data horn?

As for owned by the few most corporations are public corporations owned by shareholders. Sure control is with the richest among them. That does not change the fact that many own business. Additionally there are millions of small businesses, usually privately owned, which have among the lowest paid workers for many reasons, none of which are impacted by union representation. So put away your dated and propagandized palette and use some real data to support your wild claims and prejudices.

 

[untermensche]

You are dancing around it.

The human problem is power and the misuse of power.

And dictatorships are power structures that allow power to be used unjustly.

They give individuals and small groups too much power. And presently dictators controlling corporations are using that power to destroy the planet while the powerless watch in horror.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are dancing around it.

The human problem is power and the misuse of power.

And dictatorships are power structures that allow power to be used unjustly.

They give individuals and small groups too much power. And presently dictators controlling corporations are using that power to destroy the planet while the powerless watch in horror.

Like one person controlling a copyright?

 

[untermensche]

You are dancing around it.

The human problem is power and the misuse of power.

And dictatorships are power structures that allow power to be used unjustly.

They give individuals and small groups too much power. And presently dictators controlling corporations are using that power to destroy the planet while the powerless watch in horror.

Like one person controlling a copyright?

What power over another does that give somebody?

I don't think you understand what the word "power" means.

 

[fromderinside]

If you don't understand sir, just imagine you doubled over in laughter as Don Rickles with a massive wallet sticking out of his back pocket prances around abusing you on stage after you paid $200 for the opportunity to see and hear that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are dancing around it.

The human problem is power and the misuse of power.

And dictatorships are power structures that allow power to be used unjustly.

They give individuals and small groups too much power. And presently dictators controlling corporations are using that power to destroy the planet while the powerless watch in horror.

Like one person controlling a copyright?

What power over another does that give somebody?

I don't think you understand what the word "power" means.

Is this some sort of attempt at humour? Because either that or my mind is blown. Are you unaware of all the corporations taking kids to court for Internet piracy? Or how companies make movies of stories that are old as dirt and block other people from doing something with it. Or how Blizzard ripped off Games Workshops entire concept and made a computer game of it, Warcraft, and then were incredibly litigeous as soon as Games Workshop tried to make computer games out of their Warhammer franchise. Eventually they lost. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Copyrights basically lets whoever has the most money and best lawyers push around singular artists and anybody else who is in it for the love of art rather than being suit. Which is the antithesis of how to create good art.

 

[untermensche]

If you don't understand sir, just imagine you doubled over in laughter as Don Rickles with a massive wallet sticking out of his back pocket prances around abusing you on stage after you paid $200 for the opportunity to see and hear that.

As usual you are in outer space and make little sense.

 

[untermensche]

What power over another does that give somebody?

I don't think you understand what the word "power" means.

Is this some sort of attempt at humour? Because either that or my mind is blown. Are you unaware of all the corporations taking kids to court for Internet piracy? Or how companies make movies of stories that are old as dirt and block other people from doing something with it. Or how Blizzard ripped off Games Workshops entire concept and made a computer game of it, Warcraft, and then were incredibly litigeous as soon as Games Workshop tried to make computer games out of their Warhammer franchise. Eventually they lost. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Copyrights basically lets whoever has the most money and best lawyers push around singular artists and anybody else who is in it for the love of art rather than being suit. Which is the antithesis of how to create good art.

What dancing!!!

What arm waving nonsense!!!

What power does owning a copyright on a song give one person over another?

Laws against theft give everyone the power to stop people from stealing from them. A songwriter should own their individual work that no other person could have produced.

A dictatorship gives one person power over another.

And generally that power is used to steal.

It is amazing you get bent out of shape because you can't get songs for free but have no trouble with rigid dictatorships that are harmful to the planet and destroying it.

Talk about misplaced priorities and no sense of morality.

The morality of a petulant child that wants things for free.

 

[fromderinside]

Free speech is more than your microphone it is also your receiver. I wonder what impact copyright has on either or both. Obviously some, probably much.

As for free you claim it is important to those who own and holding copyright is owning so consisterncy should resullt in the same barbs placed on them as on owners of other things.

But, no. you are the untermenche master of bater, arbiter of all, knower of little, still piddling.

 

[untermensche]

Free speech is more than your microphone it is also your receiver.

No it is not.

It is my microphone and every other individual human's microphone.

I agree that corporate interference has destroyed popular music, but that is another topic.

 

[fromderinside]

If one is free to speak why is not one free to chose what to hear? You choose friends and associates. You choose who and what to attend to. Or are you saying that simply because others can control what is said that all that is said is controlled. If so so is your speech thus controlled.

Saying free speech is everyone's microphone with the above caveats is saying nothing at all, making moot your argument on copyright control.

 

[untermensche]

The freedom to hear what another individual produces is protected by copyright law.

I can hear John Lennon as he intended because of copyright law.

 

[fromderinside]

Amazingly the same copyright law you say protects one to hear another also constrains one from hearing what one has produced freely. An example is samples used by such as I-tunes. You get a bit of one, but to get the whole thing you need to cough up the bucks to hear the piece and you need to dish out the cash to receive it from elsewhere that from in in your own home.

Whether you can hear John Lennon as he intended is a philosophical question that has no certain answer notwithstanding copyright law.

You are trying to get down among the daisies after they've been cut sometime earlier.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What power over another does that give somebody?

I don't think you understand what the word "power" means.

Is this some sort of attempt at humour? Because either that or my mind is blown. Are you unaware of all the corporations taking kids to court for Internet piracy? Or how companies make movies of stories that are old as dirt and block other people from doing something with it. Or how Blizzard ripped off Games Workshops entire concept and made a computer game of it, Warcraft, and then were incredibly litigeous as soon as Games Workshop tried to make computer games out of their Warhammer franchise. Eventually they lost. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Copyrights basically lets whoever has the most money and best lawyers push around singular artists and anybody else who is in it for the love of art rather than being suit. Which is the antithesis of how to create good art.

What dancing!!!

What arm waving nonsense!!!

What power does owning a copyright on a song give one person over another?

Laws against theft give everyone the power to stop people from stealing from them. A songwriter should own their individual work that no other person could have produced.

A dictatorship gives one person power over another.

And generally that power is used to steal.

It is amazing you get bent out of shape because you can't get songs for free but have no trouble with rigid dictatorships that are harmful to the planet and destroying it.

Talk about misplaced priorities and no sense of morality.

The morality of a petulant child that wants things for free.

New artists starting out are often tricked or strong armed into handing over copyrights to corporations. The artists who manage to hang onto their copyrights is an incredibly small group of artists. Typically artists who were born rich or with industry parents. So a class society. The current system is designed to enrich large media corporations at the expense of the artists, as well as consumers.

Lol.... nice how you see this as me wanting things for free. Alex Jones, is it you? Copyrights mean that you don't have rights to things in your own head.

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing implies that the person who created it no longer has it. If they do, it's not stolen. People downloading pirated music doesn't mean they would have bought it anyway. If a person downloads something for free who otherwise wouldn't that enriches the entire society at no cost.

Also fun how you think that either I accept the current copyright laws or I'm for corporations destroying the world. False dichotomy much?

Anyhoo... enjoy being a corporate tool. Not that they need more people singing their praises. But who am I to judge?

 

[untermensche]

New artists starting out are often tricked or strong armed into handing over copyrights to corporations.

There are predatory mortgages too.

Does that make a mortgage, paying for something over time, a bad idea?

Corporations are extensions of sick dictators.

They do a lot of bad things.

Moral people understand all the bad things that happen when you enshrine and worship and allow dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

Amazingly the same copyright law you say protects one to hear another also constrains one from hearing what one has produced freely. An example is samples used by such as I-tunes. You get a bit of one, but to get the whole thing you need to cough up the bucks to hear the piece and you need to dish out the cash to receive it from elsewhere that from in in your own home.

Whether you can hear John Lennon as he intended is a philosophical question that has no certain answer notwithstanding copyright law.

You are trying to get down among the daisies after they've been cut sometime earlier.

You are objecting to paying for a product that somebody else created.

It is childish foot stomping, not morality.

Patents and copyrights protect the innovators.

They do not harm anyone.

The harm comes when these sick dictatorial structures enter the picture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

New artists starting out are often tricked or strong armed into handing over copyrights to corporations.

There are predatory mortgages too.

Does that make a mortgage, paying for something over time, a bad idea?

Corporations are extensions of sick dictators.

They do a lot of bad things.

Moral people understand all the bad things that happen when you enshrine and worship and allow dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

When they are reduced to defending dictatorships with that you know beyond doubt you have wasted your time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When they are reduced to defending dictatorships with that you know beyond doubt you have wasted your time.

It has never happened. So... yeah...