I didn't say I didn't like the middle-men; they are useful. What I object to is trying to model this as if there is no structure of middle-men, when it is actu

I didn't say I didn't like the middle-men; they are useful. What I object to is trying to model this as if there is no structure of middle-men, when it is actually there. The problem is, how you ensure all these people get paid? Contracts, law, government.. it gets very complicated very quickly. It's not just a series of independent transactions between two parties, as the neoclassicals like to portray it. It's also the whole social system, which ensures, as you say, nobody is going around stealing and printing money. You cannot just ignore this structure because it is this structure which determines, if say a film director gets paid say 2x than film cutter. It's not you as a viewer who determines this. That's the main contradiction - this cannot be objectively determined (if we want fairness by any reasonable definition), yet it somehow must be determined for those people to be paid. > If something can be taken without depriving anybody of it, why is payment needed? That's a good question. Unfortunately, if you answer it positively, then you are effectively against all property rights, not just intellectual property. For example, let's say I have two houses but I need only one. Why shouldn't you use my otherwise empty house for free, if you keep it in the same order? Ultimately, again, you will get a contradiction within any sort of moral framework, some people who provide value will not get paid, some will get paid.