Political Crossfire Forums

...so I think I've finally come to the point of denying the free market's legitimacy. It's a self-defeating economic structure that allows for idiots to spew nonsense and turn it inside out. For example, if it wasn't for the free market, then you wouldn't have leftist media platforms advocating the deconstruction of it.

Therefore, the real question is, "How do we prevent idiots from spewing nonsense?"

The answer is analytic technocracy, and it operates on two very simple premises.

First off, it's acknowledged that logical fallacies yield market failures due to information asymmetry, fraud, and misrepresentation. This makes "offer and acceptance" unreliable.

Therefore, the first and foremost crime/tort of analytic technocracy is the speaking of incomplete/inconsistent logic. Anyone who utters an idea without complete or consistent necessity-contingency relationships is a criminal who's liable for damages.

Second off, it's acknowledged that "damages" can be calculated in terms of kilowatthour-bytes. After all, the processing of information takes energy, time, and attention. A practical application of this can be interpreted in the way of power plants being used to generate electricity which accommodates the distribution of information over the internet.

In essence, someone who spews nonsense over the internet is harming the environment, so therefore, deserves to be billed. If someone cannot afford such a bill, then the person is put into mandatory community service at minimum wage until the bill is paid off.

Another advantage of this system is it completely eliminates politics as we know it. Bureaucrats won't be hired based on political correctness, but will be hired based on logical completeness. A virtual "veil of ignorance" can also be covered over completeness tasks by substituting semantics with objective context. For example, instead of referring to whites, blacks, Hispanics, or Asians, an oversight bureaucrat would view said terms as squares, triangles, circles, and pentagons, maintaining a separate logical modality in order to avoid subject-object prejudice.

Any questions?

cool, but practical implementation is gonna be a bitch

Man, anything to avoid the implications of capitalism.

It would be far simpler for you to just admit capitalism is logically, and more importantly on a humanistic level, insupportable. The only way capitalism is logically supportable is if your default moral position is that exploiting other humans and stealing the product of their labor is allowable.