3 ms·

You are making a moral argument whose basis is capitalistic supply and demand. But there is no reason to assume that laws of economics are a decent, humane basi

You are making a moral argument whose basis is capitalistic supply and demand. But there is no reason to assume that laws of economics are a decent, humane basis for building a moral framework. Obviously, market economics has pragmatic usefulness, but it's a cruel thing to base your humanity on. > Life isn't going to be the way you want it and you have to adjust. Life is what we make it, and mutely accepting the parts of the world we don't like is what enables those misfeatures to persist. Personally, while I see a lot of value in capitalism, I also see value in striving for a world where more people are able to make a living and do what they love. If supply and demand means that musicians can't put food on their table, is that flaw in music, or the supply and demand system?

bcoates 7y ago
You're not so much arguing that music shouldn't be capitalistic, but more capitalistic than it is today and also value (some?) musicians more. People aren't paying for music (which has been noted is about as rare as air) but control over music. If you want the money (either through licensing, fee-for-performance, or patronage) you're going to give up your control to the person who is paying the piper. If you want to keep the control, you're probably going to have to give up doing it as a day job. You can't produce non-alienated craft music like it was a pair of boots and expect people to want it anyway -- the entire value of music to others is in the alienation, the loss of control over the work ("playing to the crowd"), "supply and demand" isn't causing that and can't be reformed to change that. If the audience is you, that's fine, but why should society value that over any other private activity that makes you privately happy? We should subsidize it as much as we subsidize rock-climbing, marijuana, binge-watching Seinfeld, etc.

bcoates 7y ago

You're not so much arguing that music shouldn't be capitalistic, but more capitalistic than it is today and also value (some?) musicians more. People aren't paying for music (which has been noted is about as rare as air) but control over music. If you want the money (either through licensing, fee-for-performance, or patronage) you're going to give up your control to the person who is paying the piper. If you want to keep the control, you're probably going to have to give up doing it as a day job. You can't produce non-alienated craft music like it was a pair of boots and expect people to want it anyway -- the entire value of music to others is in the alienation, the loss of control over the work ("playing to the crowd"), "supply and demand" isn't causing that and can't be reformed to change that. If the audience is you, that's fine, but why should society value that over any other private activity that makes you privately happy? We should subsidize it as much as we subsidize rock-climbing, marijuana, binge-watching Seinfeld, etc.