[ljw1004]

In what sense is this solution "fair"? What definition of fairness is being used?

This seems like a solution where rich people get the good things and poor people don't. I wouldn't call that fair.

In a democracy, everyone has an equal weight, an equal say, in the governance of the country. We often call that fair, or sometimes just.

In capitalism, every dollar has an equal weight, an equal say in what gets produced or built or done.

[dojomouse]

In the case of transferable concert tickets that’s already the ‘solution’. Even if someone ‘poor’ is lucky enough to beat the odds and buy a ticket under the current system at the initial offer price, they still have the same opportunity cost to weigh up - it’s just they’re deciding whether to resell their ticket and realise a gain, or go to the concert and forfeit the gain.

This proposed system would be fairer in that it would at least deliver whatever the maximum amount a rich person is prepared to pay to the artist, rather that some scalper intermediary. Those at the lower end of the willingness-to-pay spectrum are no worse off, except to the extent that you think they’re disproportionately lucky, disproportionality motivated (which I accept is possible), or are themselves looking-to/willing-to scalp tickets.

It also seems however that it’d be pretty trivial to just prohibit resale of tickets and require ID at the venue. Artists/promoters might make less money but it’d preserve equality of access and largely eliminate scalping.

[8note]

What it doesn't include is the maximum an artist is willing to accept for a ticket