are these arguments against pay for business risk valid?

Question

1] no one is paid for business risk, because there is no correlation between risk and pay - risk means risk of losing money - there is big risk small returns, big risk big returns, small risk big returns, small risk small returns - no correlation

2] no one can be paid for risk - because a] there is no way of measuring [quantifying] risk, and b] no way of assigning a payment quantity per unit of risk

3] no one can be paid for risk, because, payment would alter the risk, requiring alteration of payment, etc

4] no one should be paid for risk, because it would increase the amount of risk taken

5] no one is paid for risk, because business people try to reduce risk

6] why pay for risk? - the businessperson is risking a sprat to catch a mackerel - it is his own affair, in his own interests - should we pay fishermen for risking losing their bait? - should we pay prospectors for risking wasting their time not finding minerals? -

Answer 1

+ They are not valid as the pay does not come unless they risk something,
the risk is that they lose what they risked, the pay is the reward if the risk paid off. there is no extra pay involved.
Example:
I buy a lottery ticket for $5
It loses (I am out my $5)
It wins (I get what I won)
easy enough?

Answer 2

They all look good to me, except no 5.

When a business takes a risk, either (a) it uses money from cash flow in the existing business, and in effect the shareholders are carrying the risk, or (b) it borrows the money, and then the shareholders and the lenders are sharing the risk, or (c) it raises the money by a rights issue or placement on the stock market, and then the shareholders are shouldering the risk.