> You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts.

... What? Avicebron argued that "financial reciprocation" should not be a priority of a creator, I countered that idealism won't keep you alive for long, and that creators need to make money to be able to create. Your post is completely beside the point.

Why do they need special laws to subsidize their creation? People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. Now suddenly they need special laws so its illegal to take a photograph in public without permission? Of course they need to get paid in order to live and to work, so do I, so does everyone else. Can we now discuss why creators are so special that they get an entire class of quasi-property rights where enforcement is subsidized by the state?

> People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done.

So who's going to pay them? Their employer? That raises two problems: 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, and 2) how is their employer going to make enough money?

A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.

> So who's going to pay them? Their employer?

Whoever wants artwork, obviously.

> 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore,

Actually, there are plenty of independent creators who are either self-employed or work at a job.

> 2) how is their employer going to make enough money?

Presumably the reason they are an employer is their ability to run a successful enterprise.

> A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.

Why not?

> A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.

Many great works of art have come to us via this system. In our time, isnt that what Patreon is?