![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 12th, 2010 04:45 pmApparently some people are mad at Neil Gaiman for accepting a $45,000 speaking fee to talk at a library. His defense comes in three parts: 1. people are willing to pay me that and I'm still almost losing money, compared to the money I could make speaking at corporate events or just writing . I totally donated the money to charity and I do lots of talks for free 3. the money came from a special fund designed to bring major speakers to suburban libraries in Minnesota, not the library general fund, and the money would disappear at the end of the year, so they essentially got me to talk for free.
I'm fine with argument #1. He's not robbing anyone, he's listing the amount of money it takes to make spending a few hours talking better than a few hours doing something else. Good for him. Argument 2 is unnecessary, and I'm sad at the implication that you're only allowed to charge fair market value for yourself if you're sufficiently giving in other areas, but Neil Gaiman didn't make that rule and I understand his need to control his PR. Argument 3 (made by both Gaiman and various big name author defenders) is stupid. There's no magical unit of currency that can only be used to pay authors who visit small libraries. Hearing Neil Gaiman talk is neither a constitutional right, nor an under supplied public good. It's hard for me to see how general welfare was improved taking people's money by threat of force* and spending it on Gaiman. That he gave the money to charity afterwords is irrelevant: I'm sure the original owners of the money are better at choosing which charity to donate their money to than a stranger is, even if the stranger is a best selling author.
[*I'm not usually in the taxation-is-theft crowd, but the fact is we force people to pay by threatening to put them in jail and confiscating their assets. This is reasonable for police and fire protection and roads. I don't think it applies to health care for adults, but some people do, and I can see their argument. I really don't see the argument for "bringing really expensive entertainment to places that can't afford it"]
The free money argument bothers me too. The money in the fund wasn't going to be ritually burned, it would go into the general fund. Where, theoretically, it would be spent on goods actually best provided by the government. The fact that it would probably just be wasted on something else isn't particularly relevant: if we insist other people stop wasting money before we do, we'll never get anywhere.
I wish we lived in a world where Neil Gaiman could say "dude, isn't it cool I get the median annual wage in the country for a few hours work?", but it's not his fault we don't. I really wish we lived in a world where "but other people's money was just sitting there" wasn't a defense, and he has, ever so marginally, contributed to a world in which it is.
I'm fine with argument #1. He's not robbing anyone, he's listing the amount of money it takes to make spending a few hours talking better than a few hours doing something else. Good for him. Argument 2 is unnecessary, and I'm sad at the implication that you're only allowed to charge fair market value for yourself if you're sufficiently giving in other areas, but Neil Gaiman didn't make that rule and I understand his need to control his PR. Argument 3 (made by both Gaiman and various big name author defenders) is stupid. There's no magical unit of currency that can only be used to pay authors who visit small libraries. Hearing Neil Gaiman talk is neither a constitutional right, nor an under supplied public good. It's hard for me to see how general welfare was improved taking people's money by threat of force* and spending it on Gaiman. That he gave the money to charity afterwords is irrelevant: I'm sure the original owners of the money are better at choosing which charity to donate their money to than a stranger is, even if the stranger is a best selling author.
[*I'm not usually in the taxation-is-theft crowd, but the fact is we force people to pay by threatening to put them in jail and confiscating their assets. This is reasonable for police and fire protection and roads. I don't think it applies to health care for adults, but some people do, and I can see their argument. I really don't see the argument for "bringing really expensive entertainment to places that can't afford it"]
The free money argument bothers me too. The money in the fund wasn't going to be ritually burned, it would go into the general fund. Where, theoretically, it would be spent on goods actually best provided by the government. The fact that it would probably just be wasted on something else isn't particularly relevant: if we insist other people stop wasting money before we do, we'll never get anywhere.
I wish we lived in a world where Neil Gaiman could say "dude, isn't it cool I get the median annual wage in the country for a few hours work?", but it's not his fault we don't. I really wish we lived in a world where "but other people's money was just sitting there" wasn't a defense, and he has, ever so marginally, contributed to a world in which it is.
