I recently stumbled upon a forum bashing Kim Kardashian for making exponentially more than an American minimum wage worker. Although the Kardashian clan does not have anything to offer other than their artificially enhanced looks, publicized divorces, and sex scandals, they should not be criticized for their income and (monetary) self worth. The libertarian in me shamefully feels the need to come to Kim–we’re on a first name basis–and the rest of the Kardashians’ aid and defend them in order to clear some of the misconceptions that arise from the original poster.

“I want to know the libertarian response to why Kim Kardashian deserved $28,000,000 in 2014.”

Fair enough. So, let’s go through the motions. How did she earn that money? People gave it to her. Therefore, the whole concept of “deserving” becomes irrelevant due to supply and demand. Frankly, “deserve” has nothing to do with it. Someone in our free market (‘murica) decided to put her on TV and on magazine covers. Manufacturers independently made an investment in them when they decided to create Kardashian brand clothes, accessories, and beauty products. People keep up with the Kardashians (full disclosure: I am one of these people), buy the magazines, and use their products. The consumers of the free market decided themselves to spend their hard-earned money to fund the ongoing production of the Kardashian legacy.  They are not taking money away from anyone else, so what’s the problem? There are a lot of people in the entertainment industry who don’t deserve what they earn if the criteria is based on artistic talent, although, there is something very artful about convincing millions of people across the world that you are worth millions of dollars, but that’s a topic to be explored another time.  The original poster continues to say:

“It’s amusing asking a libertarian why they think Kim Kardashian is hundreds of times more productive…”

She is not hundreds of times more productive in the way we generally think of productivity. She doesn’t produce any products, but she certainly offers a service–entertainment. Kim works in the entertainment industry, where entertainers are paid in proportion to how successful or popular they are. If you think not being productive, yet earning generous amounts of money is wrong, then you might also disagree with athletes and actors/actresses who become rich since they are not productive in the traditional sense.

“…. than an American who makes minimum wage.”

The minimum wage argument slightly implies that as Kim gets richer, she consequently takes money away from the poor, and hopefully, we know that our earned money is not taken away from anyone or any group of people. A simple economics lesson proves that anyone who can become as popular as Kim Kardashian can make money using his or her human (social) capital. She does not have an employer who pays her a wage for manual or tedious labor. She makes contract deals with wealthy people who willingly want to use her popularity to make more money. Arguing against this is to argue against human nature. We as a whole society worship our idols. Anyone with that much human capital (Michael Jordan, Steven King, Patrick Stewart, etc) can easily make money using his or her popularity. Comparing this form of wealth with minimum wage employment is comparing apples to oranges. Yes both are used to make money, but money is a transferable proxy. In a truly free society we should all be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor, even if that labor is becoming popular amongst the common denominator crowd. These people ought engage in philanthropist causes, but it is not a necessary obligation.

“What is the correct libertarian response to rationalize this phenomenon?”

If by “response” you mean take their earned money, and redistribute it argue over who gets it, the correct response is to not politicize it. This question suggests that the entertainment industry is oppressing us when we participate in anything Kardashian related, but there is simply no need to justify this phenomenon. The appropriate libertarian response is to let the Kardashians be, and when America gets tired of them, they will slowly dwindle away from our memories much like Flavor Flav and Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi.