That's only true if things like you know, automation, don't exist.
The payphone example isn't that bad honestly. What people are paying for is sending around information. You could pay a person to run around and tell it in person, or you could build a network of telephones and charge for their usage. The latter is faster, easier, cheaper, more convenient, and doesn't take any people to run despite being a major boon to society. Yet it's completely passive outside occasional maintenance.
I suppose the question is if it's ethically correct to pay the maintainer vastly more than it actually takes to maintain the public good just because they "own" it. At least currently in our society it seems we've collectively decided it's worth overpaying for the benefit since the rewards tend to be good enough (otherwise everything would be nationalized).
The payphone example isn't that bad honestly. What people are paying for is sending around information. You could pay a person to run around and tell it in person, or you could build a network of telephones and charge for their usage. The latter is faster, easier, cheaper, more convenient, and doesn't take any people to run despite being a major boon to society. Yet it's completely passive outside occasional maintenance.
I suppose the question is if it's ethically correct to pay the maintainer vastly more than it actually takes to maintain the public good just because they "own" it. At least currently in our society it seems we've collectively decided it's worth overpaying for the benefit since the rewards tend to be good enough (otherwise everything would be nationalized).