OH THANK GOD THAT A BILLIONARE GETS TO MAKE MORE MONEY!
Anyway, I got to preform in front of 20 people because the company I work for decided to work with Ticketmaster.
At least she owns her work. It is her work to profit from.
I don’t like billionaires anymore than the next person but Taylor owning her own work is a win for her and the record company tried to do her dirty to begin with.
We choose to give money to her. It’s our collective decision that she deserves this money because we like the music.
This is where any Marxist argumentation falls over a lot of the times because it cannot convincingly explain what happens when you willingly want to reward certain talented person more than the other people
Assume, he says, that the distribution of holdings in a given society is just according to some theory based on patterns or historical circumstances—e.g., the egalitarian theory, according to which only a strictly equal distribution of holdings is just.
Okay well this is immediately a false premise because nobody seriously makes this argument. This is a strawman of the notion of egalitarianism.
Also, we don’t need Wilt Chamberlain to create an unequal society, we just need money. It’s easy enough to show that simply keeping an account of wealth and then randomly shuffling money around creates the unequal distribution that we see in the real world:
And every actor there began with the impossible strictly eqalitarian beginning. No actor was privileged in any way nor had any merit whatsoever, but some wound up on top of an extremely unequal system.
So Noszick just needs to look a little deeper at his own economic system to see the problem. There is no reason why we need to have a strict numerical accounting of wealth.
OH THANK GOD THAT A BILLIONARE GETS TO MAKE MORE MONEY! Anyway, I got to preform in front of 20 people because the company I work for decided to work with Ticketmaster.
At least she owns her work. It is her work to profit from.
I don’t like billionaires anymore than the next person but Taylor owning her own work is a win for her and the record company tried to do her dirty to begin with.
Did they do her dirty? Or did they give her money, fame, prestige in return for her recording music using their resources, marketing, etc?
Seems like everyone got something
Especially considering all her co-writers and ghost writers back then.
Bruh
Good for her.
We choose to give money to her. It’s our collective decision that she deserves this money because we like the music.
This is where any Marxist argumentation falls over a lot of the times because it cannot convincingly explain what happens when you willingly want to reward certain talented person more than the other people
The famous Wilt Chamberlain argument
She has that money because she was given a platform none of us will ever have access to.
Okay well this is immediately a false premise because nobody seriously makes this argument. This is a strawman of the notion of egalitarianism.
Also, we don’t need Wilt Chamberlain to create an unequal society, we just need money. It’s easy enough to show that simply keeping an account of wealth and then randomly shuffling money around creates the unequal distribution that we see in the real world:
https://charlie-xiao.github.io/assets/pdf/projects/inequality-process-simulation.pdf
And every actor there began with the impossible strictly eqalitarian beginning. No actor was privileged in any way nor had any merit whatsoever, but some wound up on top of an extremely unequal system.
So Noszick just needs to look a little deeper at his own economic system to see the problem. There is no reason why we need to have a strict numerical accounting of wealth.