If an individual
>> wants to be a musician and has very little talent or ability
>> but insists he is to be a musician anyway who decides yes or
>> no on remunerating him for his "bad" music?
"This question is no different for a musician than for me wanting to be shortstop on the Red Sox, or to play at Wimbledon. A good economy remunerates people for socially desired labor -- not just to do anything they want, regardless of either social desires for it, or their capacity for it."
in regards to art who decides what socially desirable labor is? i mean the short stop analogy doesn't apply because 'good' or 'bad' art is way more subjective than being a good or bad shortstop. also you mentioned in a FAQ somewhere where the criteria 'making art for ones self' is deemed undesirable as far as socially desiable labor goes....who would decide what is for whom etc.? or how is it decided? in many senses one is likely to get 100 different opinions from 100 different people about what socially desirable art is. because it seems to me like say a majority vote would work at all in this area. for ex say the majority decided Chomskys writing isn't socially desirable labor. or would a market determine that?
also a seperate question: would there be say competing widget factorys etc. or just one widget factory supplying a certain area?
~M.E.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com