Consider the following passage, from "A Hero's Death," by Par Lagerkvist.[1] In it a crowd pays to see a man kill himself.

In a town where the people never seemed to get enough amusement a committee had engaged a man who was to balance on his head up on the church spine and then fall down and kill himself. He was to have 500,000 for doing it. In all levels of society, all spheres, there was keen interest in this undertaking; the tickets were snapped up in a few days and it was the sole topic of conversation. Everyone thought it was a very daring thing to do. But then, of course, the price was in keeping....

Naturally, attention was also riveted on the man who had undertaken to perform the feat. The interviewers from the press fell on him with gusto, for there were only a few days left until the performance was to take place. He received them affably in his suite at the town's most fashionable hotel. "Well, for me it's all a matter of business," he said. "I have been offered the sum known to you, and I have accepted the offer. That is all."

"But don't you think it's unpleasant having to lose your life?"

"No, you're right there, and the thought has occurred to me, too. But one does anything for money."

His picture was in every paper one opened. It showed a strong young man. There was nothing remarkable about him, but he looked spirited and healthy and had a frank, vigorous face; a typical representative of the best youth of the age willing and sound.

At last the great day arrived. The space around the church was packed with people. The excitement was intense. All held their breath, in a frenzy of expectation at what was going to happen.

And the man fell; it was soon over. The people shuddered, then got up to go home. In a way they felt a certain disappointment. It had been splendid, but ... he had only fallen and killed himself, after all. It was a lot of money to pay for something that was so simple. Of course he had been frightfully mutilated, but what was the good of that? A promising young man sacrificed in that way. People went home disgruntled; the women put up their sunshades. No, awful things like that really ought to be forbidden. What pleasure did it give anyone? On second thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

Question:

Assuming there is only room for a certain number of people to watch, and that whoever is selling tickets has a monopoly, imagine the market for the terrible spectacle (hint: what is the marginal cost of allowing another spectator in?). Assume that the 'syndicate' putting on the show collects more than enough revenue to cover the $500,000 it must pay the 'performer'. Think about the consumer and producer surplus from "this sort of thing." If total surplus (producer plus consumer) is positive, then how would you argue against it?