Upon learning about the $6,000 cost to get in, I shall think of TED Talks as a tax on rich people to provide free, online quality content to the rest of the world.
How much faster would our world develop if all education was made available this way, financed by people who have the money to spend to be the first to learn something/have the benefit of real-life interaction with the original professor?
More surprising is that Scoble's been doing whatever it is he does for so long and he doesn't have $6000.
Mark Thornton at Mises.org has one thing right: "I believe in the unrestricted right to gamble."
But he goes on to say: "Despite this, I oppose the adoption of a state lottery." I would like to agree with him here but I think he's missing the point.
I don't oppose people setting up a lottery, even if those people call themselves a "state." I do oppose those people forcing out competition at the point of a gun.
So go ahead, "state," and set up your lottery with your ridiculously horrible odds. But when the competition arrives and provides far better odds with ease, and you send armed men to shut them down, that is where you cross the line.
I just like to focus on the truly important moral principle at stake, which is to avoid initiating force against other people.
However, there are myriad ways to legally pay zero tax and many people do it every year.
I would be in favor of overhauling the tax system so it's more like TED, and would happily pay TED-like taxes where I get a high level experience for an expensive price and the whole world benefits as well. Also, it's optional and you don't get arrested/shot for not buying a ticket.
Not gonna happen.
What could happen, though, is that you could start something like TED, and charge wealthy people for a high level experience, and let the whole world benefit as well.