[pc_edwin]

I guess the point is not some libertarian utopia, but rather to eliminate any and all institutions and mechanisms that fulfil this post WWII socialist idea of corrective redistribution.

We don't need to get into why this concept is deeply flawed both morally and structurally but if the following truths are reasonable:

- Not everybody is equal in terms of value output, importance to society and value deserved.

- The most important civilisation sustaining things exist at the tail end of distributions.

- As such these things should be held extremely high in society relative to everything else.

Then we can take these truths to make claims like "the CEO wallmart is worth more than thousands of employees combined" because the difference between a good CEO vs exceptional CEO is billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs (throughout the economy).. let alone a bad CEO.

In the same way, we can say the difference between a gifted person going deep into english literature vs the average person is massive. Does it really make sense for society to back the average person on this venture? Does it make sense for the person?

Without societies backing, it would've been nearly impossible for the average person to go into this world.

The key is average here, I'm incorrectly using the word. The lady in the article is clearly not average but is she exceptional? NOPE.

Why does her role exist, why are the such courses in such third their colleges? what happens to the students..