Are you a moral person?

[fromderinside]

Deny your senses at your risk baby.

 

[untermensche]

John Lennon wrote a song about that.

Contrary to his radical avant guard image, he was a wealthy bourgeois aristocrat, a modern version.

He was wealthy because people freely paid for his music. His music gave them pleasure they could not have without it. He did not steal from anybody.

He was no aristocrat. That is what got him killed. He went out of his way to try to make his fans happy.

'power to the people' came out as a slogan of black civil rights, along with a raised clenched fist.

This was the 70's. Only 10 years removed from the Civil Rights Bill.

Women were demanding greater rights.

Gay rights was in it's infancy.

It wasn't just blacks feeling like they needed some power.

Lennon was somebody to admire.

He inspired a lot of people. He was on the side of peace and morality and fair play.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is a human made structure of power.

A structure where all real power is in the hands of a minority.

A structure where if you are not one of the dictators you either follow orders to the letter or you leave. There is no other choice.

What about if somebody is uniquely competent at a job? A surgeon has dictatorial powers in an operating theatre. Some would say that's a good thing? Running a company is hard. That's why we have CEO's. They're not doing nothing. We could argue that they're over-paid. But not having a competent CEO in charge is arguably better than everybody voting about everything. There's a reason companies like that don't survive in the market.

 

[untermensche]

It is a human made structure of power.

A structure where all real power is in the hands of a minority.

A structure where if you are not one of the dictators you either follow orders to the letter or you leave. There is no other choice.

What about if somebody is uniquely competent at a job? A surgeon has dictatorial powers in an operating theatre. Some would say that's a good thing? Running a company is hard. That's why we have CEO's. They're not doing nothing. We could argue that they're over-paid. But not having a competent CEO in charge is arguably better than everybody voting about everything. There's a reason companies like that don't survive in the market.

The surgeon is in service to the patient. He is their slave.

The capitalist dictator is in service to themselves.

All in the organization serve the dictator or they are not in the organization.

To succeed in such a system you have to either be a sick self-centered dictator or a spineless worm that wants to kiss the butts of dictators.

It is an evil system.

But people born into systems are many times completely blind to the injustices in those systems.

People born into slave societies fully accepted the morality of the system. (not the slaves)

They went to war because they saw nothing wrong with the slave system and wanted to preserve it.

 

[fromderinside]

Again you need to trust your lying senses.

You say the surgeon is slave of patient.

Yet surgeon cuts into patient, removes or changes stuff, puts the patient back together then is protected by discipline, practice and law against patient in most things.

On the other hand the patient must suffer the surgeons work, reside where the surgeon wants her, submit to procedures , practices, and humiliations including being put under anesthesia where she has no control whatever.

I say the surgeon is in control whilst the patient is subject to both disease that got her to the surgeon, facility where the surgeon practices, and protocols surgeon chooses to employ. In fact the patient must pay what the surgeon demands so saying the patient pays the surgeon for services is no lynchpin to having control.

 

[Bronzeage]

The difference between this thread and debating a toddler is, eventually the toddler will take a nap.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He was wealthy because people freely paid for his music. His music gave them pleasure they could not have without it. He did not steal from anybody.

He was no aristocrat. That is what got him killed. He went out of his way to try to make his fans happy.

'power to the people' came out as a slogan of black civil rights, along with a raised clenched fist.

This was the 70's. Only 10 years removed from the Civil Rights Bill.

Women were demanding greater rights.

Gay rights was in it's infancy.

It wasn't just blacks feeling like they needed some power.

Lennon was somebody to admire.

He inspired a lot of people. He was on the side of peace and morality and fair play.

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is a human made structure of power.

A structure where all real power is in the hands of a minority.

A structure where if you are not one of the dictators you either follow orders to the letter or you leave. There is no other choice.

What about if somebody is uniquely competent at a job? A surgeon has dictatorial powers in an operating theatre. Some would say that's a good thing? Running a company is hard. That's why we have CEO's. They're not doing nothing. We could argue that they're over-paid. But not having a competent CEO in charge is arguably better than everybody voting about everything. There's a reason companies like that don't survive in the market.

The surgeon is in service to the patient. He is their slave.

The capitalist dictator is in service to themselves.

All in the organization serve the dictator or they are not in the organization.

To succeed in such a system you have to either be a sick self-centered dictator or a spineless worm that wants to kiss the butts of dictators.

It is an evil system.

But people born into systems are many times completely blind to the injustices in those systems.

People born into slave societies fully accepted the morality of the system. (not the slaves)

They went to war because they saw nothing wrong with the slave system and wanted to preserve it.

Oh, man. You really need to read Marx. I think you've failed to grasp all his most central tennets. Capitalists are slaves to the market. That's what Marx's problem with it was. They are NOT free. Because they are slaves and NOT free, they are perverted by the market to do evil, for the benefit of nobody. In Marx's concept the capitalist paradigm the world is like an ongoing rape where everybody is a victim, even the "perpetrators".

Not to be too harsh, but I think you have embraced a leftist cartoon of socialism, so common among the left today. People who want stuff for nothing and who've made out capitalists as evil cartoons more reminiscent of Sauron than anything Marx wrote about. It makes me sad, because I think Karl Marx is one of our greatest thinkers of all time. I think the current left besmirch his legacy. You as well.

Because of this haven't voted left for years, even though I'm very much a socialist

Somebody just being a slave doesn't make them good people. Another of Marx's tennets. All slaves will be awful people. That's his problem with slavery

 

[untermensche]

The difference between this thread and debating a toddler is, eventually the toddler will take a nap.

Why don't you take a nap then?

The child supports dictatorship without even knowing why.

The adult should reject it without problem.

Sometimes an adult finds themselves in a room of children.

 

[untermensche]

He was wealthy because people freely paid for his music. His music gave them pleasure they could not have without it. He did not steal from anybody.

He was no aristocrat. That is what got him killed. He went out of his way to try to make his fans happy.

'power to the people' came out as a slogan of black civil rights, along with a raised clenched fist.

This was the 70's. Only 10 years removed from the Civil Rights Bill.

Women were demanding greater rights.

Gay rights was in it's infancy.

It wasn't just blacks feeling like they needed some power.

Lennon was somebody to admire.

He inspired a lot of people. He was on the side of peace and morality and fair play.

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

And why do you care how much they profit if their profit is based on the free and uncoerced purchase of the art?

 

[fromderinside]

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

First, those, for whatever reason appreciate, laud, and desire the art. Second, those that produce the art for some interval of time fixed by average age work is notably appreciated. I think it should not extend to the lifetimes of heirs, nor should others profit unless they add value to the art through their use and presentation of it. Putting a Picasso image of a box of Spanish cereal should not be rewarded beyond the merit of the cereal itself. Should they get a greater price with the image than without they should be taxed additionally for that amount. Also those who do should be fined for so doing.

I say this and I have dogs in the hunt.

In fact, except for the fact that those who tend to be among the poorest among us, those who drop babies like sand at the beach should be taxed for such behavior. There are social costs which need be addressed for unwitting excessive behaviors. At some point there should be calculation based penalties for those who exceed in greed, including taking advantage of the social system with children, in the form of tax penalties. There is social need for social constraints on humans and those who think differently are living in a dream world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

And why do you care how much they profit if their profit is based on the free and uncoerced purchase of the art?

Because today's copyright law ignores human psychology. Copyright law rests on the Hegelian idea of the lone genius creating masterful works of art in a vacuum. Nietzsche had the same idea. Also Ayn Rand. That's not how art works, and not how art ever has worked. Artists, influence borrow and steal from eachother all the time. All art is collaborative. It's more helpful to see all of humanity as a single hive mind producing art collectively.

When a piece of art is created and is successful it quickly becomes part of our shared culture. It takes up space in our brains. Current copyright laws prohibit us from being allowed to use that, be inspired by it and create new art that we sell. It's nuts.

There has to be some sort of reasonableness. The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

I recommend reading up on the background to why we have copyright laws at all. Originally we didn't have copyright law. It was put into place so artists should have something, rather than nothing. It was to encourage more art to be produced. Early USA thought copyright was an infringement of free speech and were stubbornly against it. They saw it as pure evil. But noticed that Mark Twain therefore didn't publish anything in USA. He published all his work in England. So they begrudgingly accepted limitted copyrights.

I recommend reading this book, Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's pro copyright. But gives a balanced view of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

I think a copyright of about 10 years after publication is fair.

There's another reason to change copyright laws. People follow incentives. Right now young people adore popstars rather than scientists and dream about being on stage. But we don't need more rock stars. What we really need is more scientists and engineers. So lets tweak the rules to get more healthy incentives for young people?

The current copyright rules are also wide open for abuse. Disney is a prime example. Constantly making cartoons of recently expired stories blocking anyone else from making films of them. Today its more lucrative to make hack art, hire a corporate lawyer, than to just focus on being creative. It's a fucked system

 

[untermensche]

What? I'd never thought I'd ever come to call you a corporate tool. He's rich because Disney and RKO manipulated copyright laws to the point of absurdity. And somehow managed to get the rest of the world to swallow their horseshit. Which is truly remarkable.

We've lost our compass completely regarding what is fair compensation to creators of copyright. Today it's bizarre what we waste our courts time with defending.

Who do you think should profit from a work of art?

And why do you care how much they profit if their profit is based on the free and uncoerced purchase of the art?

Because today's copyright law ignores human psychology. Copyright law rests on the Hegelian idea of the lone genius creating masterful works of art in a vacuum. Nietzsche had the same idea. Also Ayn Rand. That's not how art works, and not how art ever has worked. Artists, influence borrow and steal from eachother all the time. All art is collaborative. It's more helpful to see all of humanity as a single hive mind producing art collectively.

When a piece of art is created and is successful it quickly becomes part of our shared culture. It takes up space in our brains. Current copyright laws prohibit us from being allowed to use that, be inspired by it and create new art that we sell. It's nuts.

There has to be some sort of reasonableness. The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

I recommend reading up on the background to why we have copyright laws at all. Originally we didn't have copyright law. It was put into place so artists should have something, rather than nothing. It was to encourage more art to be produced. Early USA thought copyright was an infringement of free speech and were stubbornly against it. They saw it as pure evil. But noticed that Mark Twain therefore didn't publish anything in USA. He published all his work in England. So they begrudgingly accepted limitted copyrights.

I recommend reading this book, Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. It's pro copyright. But gives a balanced view of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_(book)

I think a copyright of about 10 years after publication is fair.

There's another reason to change copyright laws. People follow incentives. Right now young people adore popstars rather than scientists and dream about being on stage. But we don't need more rock stars. What we really need is more scientists and engineers. So lets tweak the rules to get more healthy incentives for young people?

The current copyright rules are also wide open for abuse. Disney is a prime example. Constantly making cartoons of recently expired stories blocking anyone else from making films of them. Today its more lucrative to make hack art, hire a corporate lawyer, than to just focus on being creative. It's a fucked system

There is a lot of pleading but no rational argument here.

Yes all art is some derivative from what already exists. But it is what exists combined with a unique mind.

It is a creation associated with only one mind.

Only one mind could have written the songs Lennon wrote.

He owned them.

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

But the case of an individual song writer is very different.

The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

Capitalism is a system out of control with no rational outcomes. That is true.

The outcomes in capitalism mostly favor the whims of the dictators.

The protections of artists and inventors with copyright law are some of the few protections from the dictators that exist.

It is not easy to become a capitalist dictator.

But it is the game with the biggest rewards.

More than Bob Dylan.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a lot of pleading but no rational argument here.

Yes all art is some derivative from what already exists. But it is what exists combined with a unique mind.

It is a creation associated with only one mind.

False. An author has all the copyright for a book. Yet, every author is dependent on a good editor to make a good book. Yet, that skill is somehow not as valued.

Only one mind could have written the songs Lennon wrote.

He owned them.

What? There's loads of music from the 60'ies that sound very similar. He was just slightly better. What about all those people upon who he built his skill. The Abbey Road sound technicians? What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Copyright is a completely artificial construct. Ownership for copyright is completely artificial. Pretending they stem from natural rights is dumb, IMHO. They don't.

The fact that artisitic copyrights are longer than industrial copyrights makes no sense. If copyrights on medication were longer medication could be cheaper. It makes sense.

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

But the case of an individual song writer is very different.

It's really not. Just because the people they've been inspired by have been lost to history, doesn't mean they aren't there.

The fact that Bob Dylan makes more money today (for music he made in the 60'ies and 70'ies) than a top level scientist or even a politician is crazy. It's a system that has spun completely out of control.

Capitalism is a system out of control with no rational outcomes. That is true.

The outcomes in capitalism mostly favor the whims of the dictators.

The protections of artists and inventors with copyright law are some of the few protections from the dictators that exist.

It is not easy to become a capitalist dictator.

But it is the game with the biggest rewards.

More than Bob Dylan.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital. I don't understand how you can support copyright and be against capitalism. You are aware that the prime benefactors of current copyright laws isn't the artists, but the people who market their work? It's built into the system.

It's like being pro Hitler, but anti Nazism.

If you want me to take you seriously, you really need to get your concepts straight.

Congratulations on being a corporate tool.

 

[untermensche]

False. An author has all the copyright for a book. Yet, every author is dependent on a good editor to make a good book. Yet, that skill is somehow not as valued.

Then the author and editor are collaborators.

So what?

What? There's loads of music from the 60'ies that sound very similar.

So what?

What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Not collaborators on any specific work of art.

Copyright is a completely artificial construct.

So are laws against rape. So what?

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

Not true at all.

You merely have problems with the concept of collaboration.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital.

They are protections for artists.

Protections against capitalist vultures.

One of the few protections that exist.

Your ideas are absurd.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then the author and editor are collaborators.

So what?



So what?

What about everybody who taught John Lennon?

Not collaborators on any specific work of art.

Copyright is a completely artificial construct.

So are laws against rape. So what?

As far as something like Disney it is hard to say which mind owns what. It is a collaborative effort and not the creation of a single mind.

As if every form of art.

Not true at all.

You merely have problems with the concept of collaboration.

What? Copyright is an attempt to make intellectual property into capital.

They are protections for artists.

Protections against capitalist vultures.

One of the few protections that exist.

Your ideas are absurd.

Lol. You're such a corporate tool. I'll leave you to it to sing praises for capitalism. You're one confused bunny

 

[untermensche]

You have run out of arguments and are reduced to spewing third rate opinions.

I oppose dictators and dictatorships.

Corporations are rigid dictatorships.

They have no connection to protecting artists and promoting art.

 

[fromderinside]

Unlike you, Dr. Zoidberg engages.

Got anything better than stereotypes and pontificates?

 

[untermensche]

Unlike you, Dr. Zoidberg engages.

Got anything better than stereotypes and pontificates?

I engage.

I just don't accept total shit ideas and people telling me lies are the truth.

My work is to destroy bad ideas, like the idea of dictatorship in the lives of people in any way.

You have no ideas here.

So you are dead already.

Or might as well be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You have run out of arguments and are reduced to spewing third rate opinions.

I oppose dictators and dictatorships.

Corporations are rigid dictatorships.

They have no connection to protecting artists and promoting art.

Third rate opinions like that the goal of copyrights are to protect the capitalists controlling the IP's rather than the creators of those IP's.

You've bought into the right wing propaganda in order to gauge the consumers of art beyond anything reasonable.

Art is like dancing. The creators and the public always create all art together.

 

[untermensche]

I spoke of no goals.

I spoke of a band-aid in a sick capitalist system where dictators are accepted by immoral people.

And I spoke of one tiny aspect of art.

One artist and his songs that nobody else could have written.

The songwriter is dependent on a producer but the producer is a technician not an artist.

The producer has nothing without the song writer.

The song writer has a lot already without the producer.

How any future revenues should be shared is between the song writer and the producer.

Nobody is dictating over anybody else and nobody is being stolen from.

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship is to give the people at the top the power to take and give as they chose from the revenues made as a group.

In huge corporations the theft from workers allows a very few to make astronomical amounts that have no connection to ability.

It is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I spoke of no goals.

I spoke of a band-aid in a sick capitalist system where dictators are accepted by immoral people.

And I spoke of one tiny aspect of art.

One artist and his songs that nobody else could have written.

The songwriter is dependent on a producer but the producer is a technician not an artist.

The producer has nothing without the song writer.

The song writer has a lot already without the producer.

How any future revenues should be shared is between the song writer and the producer.

Nobody is dictating over anybody else and nobody is being stolen from.

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship is to give the people at the top the power to take and give as they chose from the revenues made as a group.

In huge corporations the theft from workers allows a very few to make astronomical amounts that have no connection to ability.

It is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft.

Jesus fucking Christ you are clueless about how music and other art is produced. It's all teamwork. Today we give the teamlead all the IP rights. It's extremely unfair. The current copyright law only enhances the unfairness. I find it truly baffling how you are so anti-capitalist in one breath but super pro-capitalism in the other. Why don't you just marry Ayn Rand already

All copyright it rent seeking. It's cashing in on something you've done in the past without adding any new work to it. And also blocking a niche for similar work.

I'm not against copyright, but you are awfully blind about how it's used to exploit poor people.

 

[untermensche]

I accept that it is teamwork. But within the team there is one person who is irreplaceable (the song writer) and others that are talented but could be replaced.

And the team should profit as the team freely decides.

But none of that makes John Lennon immoral for making people happier and profiting from it.

The immorality is in those that accept dictatorship in any form within society.

That is the great immorality that exists today.

But just like immoralities in the past, like monarchy, the immorality is dressed up, not recognized by most, and accepted by most.

 

[fromderinside]

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship ^{need def} is to give the people at the top the power ^{need ref} to take and give as they chose ^{need ref} from the revenues made as a group.



Is it ^{what is it} is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft ^{need ref}.

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Just some wild shots ... a capitalist dictatorship is a bit like Russia's Oligarch system? Let me guess give to top of power is .... your take on Marx. It's not, but, it's my best guess of what you believe it is. I'll let you explain what it is because I have no idea what you are talking about. Who decides what is or is not a moral system whether dictator or no. Seems to me a Ponzi scheme is the epitome system of theft. Do you have an opinion?

So full of meaningless crap so filled with self important declaration. So naive of the real world even the pharmaceutical world, no, I mean the pharmacy world. Pharmaceutical is obviously way beyond you abilities to comprehend.

You're of the sort who claims the right to withhold medicines you stock to customers who have valid prescriptions just because you don't believe they should have them. If you held a moral position you wouldn't accept the medicines from those who make them. No that would be letting money stay on the table and it's your moral right to take all you can from those big money grabbers.

Your thinking is so twisted, so naive, so obviously not in tune with logical evaluation of any sort.

Its my view that by the time you get to this you will be so engrossed in Trump imitation that your hair will turn bald orange.

Now do you have an idea about how messed up you are in MHO?

 

[Bronzeage]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

 

[untermensche]

The main purpose of a capitalist dictatorship ^{need def} is to give the people at the top the power ^{need ref} to take and give as they chose ^{need ref} from the revenues made as a group.

Is it ^{what is it} is an immoral system of dictatorship and theft ^{need ref}.

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Dictatorial power structures are set up to serve the dictators.

They are a way to steal from others.

That is why people go to all the trouble to create them.

Just take a look at them and how revenues are divided.

The majority get a "market wage".

Another way of saying "lowest possible wage".

While the dictators get a dictator wage.

The highest possible.

If you can't see the immorality in that kind of setup then there is nothing to talk about.

 

[untermensche]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

 

[fromderinside]

Supply requested and we'll talk.

Dictatorial power structures are set up to serve the dictators.

They are a way to steal from others.

That is why people go to all the trouble to create them.

Just take a look at them and how revenues are divided.

The majority get a "market wage".

Another way of saying "lowest possible wage".

The highest possible.

If you can't see the immorality in that kind of setup then there is nothing to talk about.

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?

 

[fromderinside]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

Now hearing is being? Thank you very much Mr. Trump.

 

[untermensche]

Basically, the current in use definition of moral and immoral is, "anything someone else does, that I don't like, is immoral.

You never heard anyone claim that dictatorships are immoral?

You never heard anyone say that one person REDUCING another to their tool is immoral?

You never heard that organized theft is immoral?

Now hearing is being? Thank you very much Mr. Trump.

No, hearing is being exposed to ideas.

Ideas like dictatorship is an immoral form of human interaction.

Immoral and dangerous.

Yet there are many that defend it.

Their defense is pathetic. Like those that defended kings and their right to dictatorial power for centuries.

Human social progress is slowed by the willingness of people to accept the immorality of their day.

 

[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...