While I like that his reasoning somehow reminded me of Bill & Ted, Julian's argument relies on a causal fallacy and is susceptible to a reductio.
1) The casual fallacy, an instance of reverse-chronological snobbery: Just because previous generations did all the incremental work to invent musical notation and guitars and advance our collective understanding of rhythm, harmony and melody does not mean "A Day in the Life" is not a unique work of staggering, mind-blowing genius. Yes, the boys from Liverpool would not have written and recorded it without a chain of achievements stretching back to the very first caveman who banged a stick on a log. But that doesn't mean that the first cave-drummer or baroque guitarist could ever in a million years have produced Sgt. Pepper's, even with the exact same tools, knowledge and cultural referents at their disposal.
2) The glaringly-obvious reductio: If we only deserve benefit for those things we create that we don't owe to earlier people in history who made contributions necessary to their development, than what do deserve? Does Monsanto deserve the profit from it's drought-resistant seeds, since they rely on the work of Mendel? Does my favorite local cupcake bakery deserve to profit from the sales of their original Cherry Blossom flavor, since the Romans invented cake-baking? Does Megan deserve to be paid for this post she typed on a computer she doesn't fully understand that she didn't even attach any commentary to?
Obviously, the correct analysis is that all economic activity relies upon the work of others, stretching back to the nameless, long-dead caveman. And there is no compelling reason that I see or Julian provides to distinguish between material and immaterial innovation.
----
Oh, and I'm going to start calling any argument that includes "Quit whining, you're just lucky not to be a caveman!" the Silence, Caveman! Fallacy.
titsay
vaporwave
romaincrisis
izzy806