Comment by criticalfault
13 hours ago
wouldn't this apply everywhere?
let's say agriculture. if you make one tone of tomatoes, one family cannot consume this in a year without becoming red. so should farmers also give it for free?
what about artists? it's not that their work even has a utility function...
If you've grown a ton of tomatoes, you're probably doing it for the express purpose of profiting from it. To dial back the scope to something more comparable, if I have 4-5 tomato plants, I'm going to have all the tomatoes I want and then some. In that case, yes, I'm absolutely going to give away some tomatoes so that other people can enjoy them (as opposed to them ending up in the compost bin).
If you know any farmers, chances are they have given some away for free. To friends and family at least. Artists I know have done some art for free.
Yes, it would, it does, they should and they often do. When they don't it tends to be because they're struggling to have their other needs fulfilled.
I think plenty of artists would give away their work for free without second thoughts if they didn't have to make it pay their bills.
Yes, I understand most artists would be glad if their landlords accepted "exposure" as rent.
Similarly most salespeople would gladly work commission-free if it meant more sales.
> . if you make one tone of tomatoes, one family cannot consume this in a year without becoming red. so should farmers also give it for free?
Now, no, of course not.
Originally though, yes this is how many human economies worked. Surplus was shared in a gift economy.