Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain Argument

Why do some people make millions reviewing toys, being a mumble rapper, or selling feet pics? I thought we were in a meritocracy. Do they work harder than the cleaner working 15-hour shifts? Are they more talented than a scientist doing cutting-edge research? Maybe they contribute more to society than the pediatric surgeon?

Back in the 1970s, philosopher Robert Nozick used the example of Wilt Chamberlain to explain why inequalities in wealth are sometimes inevitable—and why they might not be as unfair as they seem. Imagine this: A million people each pay 25 cents to watch Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. At the end of the season, Wilt walks away with $250,000 for playing a game of basketball. But here’s the thing: everyone who paid to see him was happy with that exchange. They wanted to spend their money on him. So, why should anyone consider this unfair? Nozick argued that as long as people acquire wealth through voluntary exchanges, where both sides are happy, there’s nothing unjust about it—even if the outcome leads to huge inequalities in wealth. Even if Wilt ends up richer than most people, the system worked because no one was forced—they paid because they wanted to, and it’s a voluntary system of exchanges.

This is happening every day. Take Ryan Kaji, the kid behind Ryan’s World. His estimated net worth is about $100 million. He’s famous for reviewing toys on YouTube, and his family has built an empire from this. You might think, “Why is a kid making millions for playing with toys on camera?” But, just like in the Wilt Chamberlain example, Ryan’s viewers are willingly watching his videos, often driving their parents to buy the products he reviews. There’s no coercion here. Millions of kids are entertained, and companies value that audience enough to spend big bucks on advertising. Ryan’s success comes from a free exchange—his viewers want to watch, and advertisers want their products seen. Viewers are paying with their attention. A fraction of a cent from each view adds up when you have hundreds of millions of views.

Next, we have the world of Twitch streaming. Streamers like Ninja make over a million dollars a month playing video games, chatting with their audience, and building communities. Some people might say, “How is this a job?” but the Wilt Chamberlain argument applies here too. Fans choose to donate money, subscribe, or simply give their attention because they enjoy the content. Whether they’re learning new gaming strategies or just enjoying the personality of the streamer, the transaction is voluntary. In return, the streamer earns an income that reflects their popularity. Just like people chose to pay to watch Wilt, people today choose to support their favorite Twitch streamers.

Finally, we get to one of the most controversial examples: OnlyFans creators. Bhad Bhabie, Miss “Catch Me Outside,” earned over $57 million since 2021. Many people have strong opinions about this platform, but the same principle applies. Subscribers willingly pay to access content they value, whether it’s for entertainment, connection, or other reasons. This is another form of voluntary exchange. The creators set their terms, and their fans decide if it’s worth it to them. The fact that some creators make huge amounts of money isn’t a flaw in the system but a reflection of supply and demand. Like Wilt Chamberlain’s basketball skills, these creators offer something that people are willing to pay for.

These examples all fall under the category of influencers. Everybody wants to be an influencer these days for obvious reasons: there are financial incentives. There’s certainly some skill in it, like marketing and advertising, or being really good-looking or good at something so it attracts people to watch. But there’s a very low barrier to entry to trying to be an influencer, and only a small fraction of a fraction of people at the top make any real money. And getting to the top is mostly luck. But hey, why not try to go viral and roll the dice?

If views are the currency, then it makes sense to optimize for amassing as many views as possible. But this can have weird consequences of attracting views at all costs. In today’s world, some transactions aren’t as innocent or voluntary as they first appear. Rage baiting is a malicious way of eliciting outrage to gain views, like saying racist or derogatory statements to elicit engagement. There’s fake content to elicit sympathy or emotional responses, like hiring actors to make a video where it looks like you’re helping the homeless. Or plain pandering to misinformation or conspiracy theories to trick people into thinking they’re being informed or educated. All of these avenues seem to exploit the viewers and trick them into paying with their precious time and attention. Instead of paying 25 cents to watch Wilt Chamberlain, you pay 25 cents and get baited into watching Ja Rule try to dunk a basketball. These exchanges feel less voluntary when manipulation is involved. Is there still social value if a degenerate freely pays $30 for a gamer girl’s bathwater?

Let’s look at a non-influencer example: Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. Pretty rich guy, and he did it through offering something valuable that a lot of people wanted: a really profitable consumer business—that sells books or clouds or something—that people wanted to buy shares of. Great, people are making voluntary choices based on the value offered, and the guy offering the value is getting really rich. Yay, capitalism. We should structure our societies so people can freely make choices and others can freely amass great wealth off their merits, right? Maybe.

While Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument highlights the importance of individual liberty in economic transactions, there are some counterarguments. To start, the world is not a level playing field. Jeff Bezos probably wouldn’t have been able to start Amazon if he were born into a lower-class family and had to work 12 hours a day to support his parents, like many Americans today have to do. I don’t have the genetics to be attractive enough to start an OnlyFans. Life is unfair.

Deeper than just equal starting points, there are historical injustices that have led to these complicated social dynamics—some people are born into a nice middle-class family, and others are born into a life of struggle. There are additional barriers of discrimination that further perpetuate disparities in wealth that don’t exactly seem fair in a just society. Not everybody can be Wilt Chamberlain, whether it’s due to height, disability, or some other barrier, and not everybody can fairly pay 25 cents to watch Wilt Chamberlain. The ideals of individual freedom in economic transactions might need to be put aside for other considerations of justice, like protecting the least well-off, making sure that everybody has some basic necessities, or promoting other social goods like healthcare or education.

This is not an economic argument. The economic explanation is straightforward: supply and demand. Nozick’s argument is in political philosophy, and he responds to the question of how wealth ought to be distributed according to some principles of justice, using this thought experiment to illustrate how inequalities of wealth can be just if individuals freely choose it. You might not understand why people are paying for these things, but that’s the beauty of free choice. Everyone values things differently, and in a system where transactions are voluntary, people like Wilt Chamberlain—or toy reviewers, Twitch streamers, or OnlyFans models—end up with more because they offer something people want.

The question is: are we okay with that? Is that a just society? Do we value the freedom to choose, even if it creates these vast inequalities and resultant social harms?