29 Dec 2021 4:25 pm
Using Michael Jordan as an example:
Michael used his effort to hone his skills to a truly phenomenal level. As was his inalienable right to do so.
MJ <--> Owner of the Bulls
MJ and the owner of the Bulls entered into a private contract in which the owner agreed to pay him $26M/year to play for the Bulls without government interference. Both parties thought they would benefit from the exchange of labor (and they were right).
Owner <--> Fans
The owner risked this money paid to MJ with the prospect of increased revenue. He did this partly due to the prospect of increased ticket sales and cost of admission to the Bulls games. The fans willingly and freely agreed the cost of admission was well worth the exchange of their wealth to watch the spectacle. No one was forced to buy tickets so obviously all involved were happy with the exchange.
Owner <--> advertisers
Due to increased viewership advertisers also began paying more to air their commercials during Bulls games. They willingly did so as they perceived the best use of their resources (i.e. $) was to advertise their products in an effort to increase sales and prices of their own products. All freely agreed without government interference. Television viewers thought it a good use of their time to watch these advertisements if it meant getting to see the game.
It is not up to me to object to the contracts and compensations agreed upon. It isn't my labor being expended by Michael on the court and I'm not the one paying him $26M. Socialists claim this is unfair for Michael to earn so much more than the average Joe. This flies in direct contradiction to the American Idea. We all are equal in the regard we have the right to property and the product which results from our labor through free and private contracts without government interference. It is no one else's business to object or share in the proceeds. Our system isn't based on equal pay. It is based on equal opportunity.
Michael used his effort to hone his skills to a truly phenomenal level. As was his inalienable right to do so.
MJ <--> Owner of the Bulls
MJ and the owner of the Bulls entered into a private contract in which the owner agreed to pay him $26M/year to play for the Bulls without government interference. Both parties thought they would benefit from the exchange of labor (and they were right).
Owner <--> Fans
The owner risked this money paid to MJ with the prospect of increased revenue. He did this partly due to the prospect of increased ticket sales and cost of admission to the Bulls games. The fans willingly and freely agreed the cost of admission was well worth the exchange of their wealth to watch the spectacle. No one was forced to buy tickets so obviously all involved were happy with the exchange.
Owner <--> advertisers
Due to increased viewership advertisers also began paying more to air their commercials during Bulls games. They willingly did so as they perceived the best use of their resources (i.e. $) was to advertise their products in an effort to increase sales and prices of their own products. All freely agreed without government interference. Television viewers thought it a good use of their time to watch these advertisements if it meant getting to see the game.
It is not up to me to object to the contracts and compensations agreed upon. It isn't my labor being expended by Michael on the court and I'm not the one paying him $26M. Socialists claim this is unfair for Michael to earn so much more than the average Joe. This flies in direct contradiction to the American Idea. We all are equal in the regard we have the right to property and the product which results from our labor through free and private contracts without government interference. It is no one else's business to object or share in the proceeds. Our system isn't based on equal pay. It is based on equal opportunity.