Across history, some ideologies have demonstrated such destructive consequences—both in theory and practice—that societies have been justified in criminalizing them. Nazism in Germany, genocide denial laws in France, and bans on terrorist propaganda in multiple jurisdictions are all rooted in the principle that free speech does not extend to ideas which demonstrably dismantle the shared fabric of coexistence, democracy, or survival. It is in this vein that we must now re-examine an ideology that, while outwardly cloaked in the language of liberty, consistently erodes the conditions required for equitable, livable human society: Free Market Libertarianism, specifically in its Anglo-American, right-libertarian, or Objectivist variants.
Unlike European or anarchist left-libertarian models—which aim for reduced imposition, mutual aid, and decentralized care-based structures—Anglo-American Free Market Libertarianism is built on the idea of universalizing competitive imposition. That is, it structurally rewards those who accumulate coercive leverage over others via capital, infrastructure, or monopoly, and frames this coercion as “freedom.” It produces social environments where those without bargaining power are subjected to degrading, precarious, or lethal outcomes with no recourse. This is not passive ideology—it is an active philosophical weapon that turns freedom into a euphemism for extraction.
This is not a theoretical concern. In practice, when Free Market Libertarianism is allowed to influence policy, it produces cascading effects of real, measurable harm. Health outcomes worsen as universal systems are dismantled in favor of privatized profit incentives. Housing becomes commodified into speculative assets, not shelter. Education is reduced to debt servitude. Infrastructure is privatized and undermaintained. Climate action is obstructed by corporate interests. All of these are not peripheral effects—they are baked into the ideological DNA of the doctrine. They are consequences that its adherents not only accept, but often actively defend as signs of market “efficiency.”
We must establish a new foundation to examine and regulate such ideologies: what I call the FLOOR principle. This principle proposes that any system or policy must, at a minimum, preserve a baseline standard of life—access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, mobility, education, and non-coerced social participation. If a political ideology allows for the systemic degradation of access to these minima, it becomes incompatible with democratic coexistence. Free Market Libertarianism, by its very nature, disavows the floor. It denies that any such shared baseline should exist, proposing instead that outcomes—even those of death, homelessness, or suffering—are morally justifiable so long as the transactional framework was “voluntary.”
This framing is a dangerous sleight of hand. In any situation where one party holds disproportionate leverage—control over water, land, essential medication, or the right to repair equipment—consent becomes structurally meaningless. A starving person agreeing to a life of indentured labor in exchange for food is not a participant in a free transaction. They are the subject of a coercive arrangement under the illusion of choice. Libertarian ideology recasts such coercion as “freedom from government interference,” but this simply replaces collective governance with corporate governance—without democratic accountability.
Jordan Peterson, in the article from Washington Monthly, illustrates the way this ideology bleeds into cultural narratives, often under a psychological or pseudo-biological veneer. His reduction of social dynamics—particularly gender relations—to pure hierarchical sorting mechanisms is a direct import from market logic. In this view, those who are not “winners” in the mating or economic marketplace have no moral claim to assistance or redistribution. This logic justifies not only inequality, but abandonment. It replaces moral discourse with market fundamentalism. It naturalizes despair.
Likewise, the publication of blueprints for 3D-printed weapons is framed as a free speech issue by libertarians, ignoring that this access bypasses every regulatory structure designed to prevent mass harm. The same is true for online platforms that promote stochastic terrorism or anti-democratic conspiracy theories—algorithms that amplify emotionally destabilizing, violent content because outrage is profitable are not neutral tools. They are information systems that manufacture real-world harm, and libertarian resistance to regulating them is not principled—it is pathological.
In this light, we can no longer treat Free Market Libertarianism as merely “a different political view.” It is an ideological sociopathy that systematically rejects reciprocal obligation, collective responsibility, and the moral worth of the vulnerable. It constructs a society where human interactions are explicitly zero-sum, where one person’s abundance can morally coexist with another’s preventable death, and where all outcomes are rationalized as “earned.”
It is entirely appropriate, then, to consider criminalizing the advocacy of such systems. Not because they offend sensibilities, but because they demonstrably undermine democratic order, violate the FLOOR principle, and produce preventable suffering through deliberate policy influence. Just as one cannot legally advocate for terrorist violence or genocidal action, one should not be permitted to organize or propagandize for ideologies that aim to dismantle the very minima upon which human survival depends.
Next, we will examine concrete scientific evidence for how deregulated market ideologies correlate with mortality rates, psychological distress, infrastructure collapse, and long-term social instability—and the ways in which their adherents reframe these outcomes as morally righteous. The case is not only moral; it is structural, measurable, and urgent.
The FLOOR Principle: Establishing Non-Negotiable Conditions for Survival
At its core, the FLOOR Principle posits that any functioning society must guarantee a foundational set of conditions below which no human being can be allowed to fall. These minima are not moral luxuries—they are material requirements for life, dignity, and participation in social existence.
The concept is inspired in part by Maslow’s hierarchy, by Amartya Sen’s “capability approach,” and by basic ecological systems theory. In any biosphere, a set of baseline inputs—oxygen, water, temperature, energy—must be maintained or the system fails. Human societies are no different. For social equilibrium to be possible, a set of collective guarantees must be embedded into the structure of law, economy, and infrastructure.
These guarantees include, but are not limited to:
-
Safe and sufficient access to breathable air, water, and food
-
A sheltering environment with temperature and atmospheric control
-
Basic medical care and disease prevention
-
Non-coerced access to education and information
-
Some degree of autonomy and consent in labor and relationships
-
Protection from exploitation or dehumanization
-
Mobility—physical, social, and communicative
-
The right to exit abusive environments without dying
The FLOOR is not utopia. It is not luxury. It is bare survivability in a world of asymmetric power. Any system that tolerates even one person falling through that floor is, by this principle, structurally defective—and ultimately hostile to human survival.
Space Colonies as Testbeds for Ideological Stress
To explore how and why this matters, imagine a near-future human colony on Mars, the Moon, or an orbiting habitat. In such an environment, nature does not provide fallback options. There is no “wilderness” to run to. The entire system is closed-loop. There is no breathable air outside the dome, no natural food supply, no autonomous agriculture without technology. Every necessity of life must be generated, sustained, and equitably distributed through systems engineering and civic governance.
Now imagine this environment operated under a Free Market Libertarian regime.
You would immediately face profound ethical and material contradictions:
-
Oxygen as a commodity.
Suppose oxygen production is privatized. A monopolistic firm produces it, prices it according to demand, and offers payment plans. If a colonist becomes unemployed or ill and cannot pay, do they get denied access? Do they suffocate? The libertarian argument would frame this as “market discipline,” not murder. But in an enclosed system, oxygen denial is de facto execution. It is aggression under the mask of transaction. -
Water and food as leverage.
Controlled hydroponics could become privatized. Those with capital secure food surplus and sell at speculative prices. Famine, in this context, becomes artificial—a product of market mechanics, not resource scarcity. Starvation in a dome is not just predictable—it is engineered. -
Healthcare as a privilege.
Without a communal healthcare protocol, injured or ill colonists may die not because their condition is untreatable, but because no one found it profitable to save them. Free market ideology frames this as “freedom of enterprise.” In practice, it becomes structural euthanasia. -
Power asymmetry becomes terminal.
In space, those who control life support systems—airlocks, energy sources, recycling infrastructure—control life itself. The more market logic is applied to essential systems, the more power concentrates into the hands of those who own the infrastructure. “Consent” becomes meaningless when the alternative is death. -
Labor coercion and indenture.
In such conditions, the population could be locked into employment contracts under constant threat of expulsion, oxygen cutoffs, or resource deprivation. The free market converts every relationship into a power differential. In a fragile, closed system, market logic becomes totalitarianism by other means.
Why the FLOOR Principle is Non-Negotiable in Space—and Earth
The fragility of a space colony simply reveals the latent flaws already present in terrestrial libertarian models. Earth, for now, buffers our failures. There are oceans to flee to, fields to grow food, and states that can intervene (however poorly). But as climate change, automation, and digital enclosure reduce those margins, Earth itself is becoming more like a space colony: closed, monitored, hyper-vulnerable to infrastructural sabotage.
The FLOOR principle must therefore be understood not as idealism, but as biological realism. Any society that cannot guarantee minimum survivability is either descending into social collapse or being run explicitly as a control system for elites.
This becomes especially dangerous when ideologies like Free Market Libertarianism disguise power asymmetries under the language of freedom. The moment access to existential resources is governed by private profit motives, you have functionally legalized murder, just with a spreadsheet and a Terms of Service agreement.
This is no longer just theory. Climate change, global housing crises, medical bankruptcy, privatized prisons, and mass homelessness all indicate that the floor is collapsing for millions. And the dominant ideological response has been either hand-waving or cruelty. Libertarians propose that those who cannot afford to live should not live. This is not hyperbole—it is the implicit consequence of removing structural guarantees.
Towards Criminalizing the Floorless Society
In this light, we must consider the legal and moral case for banning systems of thought that advocate for floorless societies. Like incitement to violence or fascist recruitment, Free Market Libertarianism, in its most aggressive forms, normalizes fatal neglect. It reframes structural violence as “liberty” and produces ecosystems where death by omission is systemically expected.
To outlaw such ideology is not to ban disagreement or critique. It is to prevent the engineering of environments where survival itself is up for sale. In a world where infrastructure and governance increasingly determine whether people live or die, ideologies that deny collective responsibility become instruments of harm—and must be treated as such.
Water as Weapon: The Criminal Consequences of Monopolizing a Biological Necessity
Water monopolization presents one of the most direct and scientifically verifiable examples of structural harm enabled by deregulated market ideology. In biological terms, water is a non-negotiable prerequisite for human cellular function, thermoregulation, and metabolic homeostasis; deprivation results in irreversible damage or death within days. The monopolization of water—whether through the acquisition of aquifers, privatization of urban water systems, or exclusive control over purification infrastructure—transforms this essential resource into a tool of coercion. Those who control water in such systems hold de facto power over life and death, and use scarcity as leverage for profit or social control. In a just legal framework governed by the FLOOR principle, corporate executives and stakeholders involved in implementing, profiting from, or defending such monopolistic control would be criminally liable for negligent homicide, civil rights violations, or ecocidal practices, depending on jurisdictional framing. Moreover, publicly advocating for such systems—where human survival is explicitly commodified and denied to the poor—must be treated as a form of incitement to systemic violence, akin to advocating ethnic cleansing or the denial of healthcare as a mechanism of class warfare. This is not a matter of rhetorical excess, but of empirical causality: water monopolies kill, predictably and systematically. To defend them is to defend premeditated harm against vulnerable populations.
Healthcare Denial as Structural Violence: When Profit Becomes Premeditated Neglect
Healthcare privatization, particularly when governed by free market libertarian logic, transforms a basic human need into a stratified commodity, accessible only to those with adequate purchasing power. Scientifically, access to timely medical intervention determines survival outcomes in conditions ranging from trauma to chronic disease to infectious outbreaks. When healthcare is withheld due to inability to pay, the resulting fatalities are not incidental—they are systemic and forecastable. This constitutes a form of structural violence, wherein death is not caused by disease itself but by engineered inaccessibility. In a society governed by the FLOOR principle, executives, insurers, and legislators responsible for designing or defending healthcare exclusion would be liable for negligent manslaughter or crimes against humanity, depending on the scale of preventable loss of life. The notion that life-saving care should be reserved for the economically viable is no different in moral structure from denying oxygen in an enclosed environment. Public advocacy for such systems must likewise be considered ideologically criminal: it is a form of mass stochastic harm, veiled in policy rhetoric, but rooted in a clear understanding that people will die as a consequence of these beliefs.
Corporate Personhood and Free Speech as Aggression: Speech Backed by Infrastructure
The doctrine of corporate personhood, particularly its extension into “free speech” rights as established in cases like Citizens United v. FEC, constitutes a form of asymmetrical communicative aggression. Unlike individual speech, which operates within biological and social limits, corporate speech is amplified through wealth, automation, psychological targeting, and infrastructural dominance. It is speech that cannot be ignored, silenced, or meaningfully contested by ordinary citizens. When corporations spend billions to influence elections, shape public discourse, suppress regulatory reforms, or normalize extractive behavior, they are not expressing ideas—they are executing systemic pressure with the intent to reshape governance and collective priorities. This is not speech in the democratic sense; it is power projection. The consequences are not abstract: deregulation of health, safety, and labor standards has directly contributed to measurable increases in mortality, environmental degradation, and economic precarity. In this context, corporate free speech is a form of structural coercion, designed to preclude consent and overwhelm counter-narratives. Legal frameworks grounded in the FLOOR principle would define this behavior as institutionalized incitement to harm, and restrict or criminalize its most aggressive forms. Corporate entities are not sentient moral agents; granting them constitutional protections as if they were is a category error that produces material violence.
Housing as Human Right: The Structural Violence of Commodification
Housing fulfills a fundamental physiological and psychological need. It provides thermal insulation, protection from environmental hazards, physical security, and the spatial foundation for social and emotional stability. From a public health and epidemiological perspective, stable housing is directly correlated with lower mortality, reduced transmission of communicable disease, improved mental health outcomes, and increased educational attainment across generations. Under free market libertarianism, however, housing is reframed not as a right but as an investment asset—one to be hoarded, speculated upon, and withdrawn from public use to increase scarcity and inflate returns. The result is mass homelessness, housing insecurity, and gentrification-induced displacement. In economic terms, these outcomes are not failures but features—strategic market responses to supply-side manipulation and artificially induced scarcity. Under a FLOOR-principled framework, corporate landlords, hedge funds, and real estate conglomerates engaging in deliberate housing stock restriction, mass evictions, or exploitative rent inflation would be subject to legal sanctions for social destabilization and targeted coercion. Furthermore, public advocacy for treating shelter as a fully unregulated commodity—while dismissing its function in sustaining life—would be recognized not as policy preference but as a tacit endorsement of fatal neglect. To frame the denial of shelter as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of profit is to advocate a form of class-based eugenics by omission.
Locked-Down Farming Equipment: Technological Enclosure as Economic Aggression
Agricultural independence is foundational to food security, ecological resilience, and the long-term viability of human settlement. Farmers, as stewards of land and food systems, require autonomous access to their tools, machinery, and knowledge in order to sustain production and adapt to local conditions. The corporate practice of locking down farming equipment—by embedding proprietary software, forbidding user repairs, and mandating exclusive servicing—represents a form of imposed dependency that undermines this autonomy. From a systems engineering perspective, it introduces single points of failure, restricts adaptation to emergent crises, and concentrates control over food production into a narrow corporate apparatus. This is not innovation; it is enclosure—deliberate disempowerment of independent producers for the sake of recurring rent extraction.
Such constraints violate the FLOOR principle by jeopardizing both the producer’s livelihood and the population’s access to food. When a farmer is prevented from harvesting or repairing machinery due to software locks or legal threats, the resulting food shortages or price shocks are not natural disasters—they are engineered outcomes. The aggression lies in designing systems where life-critical infrastructure is contingent upon ongoing corporate permission. In any society governed by democratic or biospheric rationality, executives who implement or enforce such constraints would be criminally liable for deliberate destabilization of food systems, and for placing populations at risk of scarcity-induced harm. Public advocacy for these policies, when made with knowledge of their likely effects, should be classified not as opinion but as incitement to technostructural coercion.
Walled Gardens and Technological Entrapment: When Consumer Choice Becomes a Trap
The design and enforcement of closed technological ecosystems—commonly referred to as “walled gardens”—constitutes a sophisticated form of consumer entrapment. Corporations like Apple have pioneered this model, in which users are required to operate within a tightly controlled environment of proprietary software, hardware, app distribution channels, and accessory compatibility. At the surface, this is framed as quality assurance or user experience optimization. But in functional terms, it is a lock-in strategy designed to increase switching costs, extract recurring revenue, and constrain autonomy.
Once a user is embedded in such a system, the costs of leaving—financial, cognitive, and social—can be prohibitive. Data portability is restricted, third-party repairs are penalized or voided, non-sanctioned applications are blocked, and interoperable accessories are often deliberately sabotaged. These structures operate not on open market competition but on strategic design of dependencies. Under the FLOOR principle, where communication, information access, and digital agency are deemed vital components of modern life, this model represents an assault on user autonomy. It is not coercion with a threat, but with infrastructure—an engineered absence of exit.
The cumulative harm includes economic extraction without recourse, erosion of digital literacy, and normalization of corporate sovereignty over user behavior. Advocacy for such systems, particularly in public policy or educational frameworks, should be recognized as institutional endorsement of technological servitude. In a democratic context, this is not merely poor design—it is the construction of a privatized jurisdiction over civil participation, and it deserves legal scrutiny accordingly.
Amazon and the Big Box Drain: Retail Vampirism and Community Exsanguination
The rise of Amazon, along with the proliferation of big box retail chains, represents not merely a shift in consumer convenience but a systemic form of economic parasitism. These entities operate through logistical supremacy, algorithmic pricing, predatory placement, and tax arbitrage to outcompete and replace local businesses. To the consumer, the effect may appear as greater selection and lower prices. To the community, the result is the slow hemorrhage of local capital, employment diversity, and resilience. The metaphor is not incidental: these corporations behave vampirically—extracting economic lifeblood from towns, funneling purchasing power into centralized data centers and offshore accounts, while leaving the social body of the community anemic and dependent.
Empirical studies have shown that for every job created by a large retailer, up to 1.5 local jobs may be lost. Local businesses recirculate a significantly larger percentage of revenue into the regional economy compared to national chains. The death of these businesses not only erodes economic diversity but weakens civic institutions, from local journalism to infrastructure maintenance, by reducing the tax base. Once the local ecosystem is drained of independent commerce, residents are left with fewer options, reduced bargaining power, and a dependency on entities that answer to shareholders, not citizens.
Under the FLOOR principle, where community self-sufficiency and social health are structural necessities, such models are inherently hostile. The economic model Amazon exemplifies is not sustainable participation—it is centralization through systemic depletion. Legal and economic frameworks that permit or protect this form of market domination are not neutral—they are complicit in designing extractive architectures that resemble occupation more than trade. Advocacy for these systems, particularly in policymaking or urban planning, should be scrutinized as enabling mass economic disempowerment, and where knowingly pursued, treated as negligent governance.
Social Platforms, Email Gatekeeping, and the Engineered Architecture of Marginalization
Access to digital communication is no longer optional; it is infrastructural. Email services, social media platforms, and search visibility now constitute the public square, the telephone network, the newspaper, and the town hall rolled into one. Control over these systems confers control over a person’s visibility, access to opportunity, and ability to participate in discourse. When these systems deploy opaque moderation protocols, algorithmic deprioritization, or shadowbanning—particularly without accountability or appeal—they do not merely filter content. They enact engineered marginalization.
Shadowbanning and de-ranking mechanisms suppress a user’s ability to reach others without informing them that suppression has occurred. Users become invisible—cut off from engagement, unable to organize, advocate, or defend their presence in the network. This creates a form of soft erasure, where voices disappear not through prohibition, but through silence. In the context of platform monopolies—such as Meta, X/Twitter, Google, or Microsoft—this amounts to privatized control over social existence. Email deliverability is similarly policed through black-box spam filtering, domain suppression, and cross-platform algorithmic evaluation, often biased by commercial partnerships or implicit ideological sorting.
This control becomes most dangerous when it targets marginalized or dissenting voices. Whistleblowers, activists, sex workers, minority political perspectives, and transnational movements can be algorithmically ghettoized—pushed to the edges of relevance without process, evidence, or redress. The result is not merely inconvenience; it is digital disenfranchisement, with real-world implications ranging from loss of income to political silencing to psychological isolation.
Under the FLOOR principle, communicative agency is a baseline requirement for democratic participation and social cohesion. Systems that deliberately or systematically obstruct that agency, especially when operated by monopoly actors, are functionally coercive. Their architects and operators, when knowingly designing for exclusion or chilling effects, bear responsibility not for “content moderation” but for informational gatekeeping as structural harm. Public advocacy that frames such practices as neutral market behavior must be interrogated as complicit in technological authoritarianism.
AI-as-a-Service and the Emergence of Computational Authoritarianism: From CCP Alignment to Libertarian Extraction
The rapid ascent of AI-as-a-service platforms—particularly large language models and multi-modal systems—marks a pivotal transformation in the architecture of power. These systems are not merely tools for productivity or entertainment; they are ideological infrastructure capable of shaping thought, regulating access to information, enforcing social norms, and rewriting the contours of human agency. The deployment of these platforms under the pretext of neutrality, when in fact they reflect and reinforce specific economic and political ideologies, constitutes a profound threat to democratic autonomy.
Consider the case of DeepSeek, an AI model aligned explicitly with the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. The system is openly designed to propagate narratives approved by a one-party authoritarian state, suppress dissent, and engineer social consensus around pre-approved ideological pillars. This is not just propaganda—it is the mechanization of political indoctrination through ambient computation. The user does not merely read state media; they converse with it, unknowingly negotiating with a censor in the shape of a helpful assistant. DeepSeek thus represents a new class of algorithmic fascism: a state-controlled epistemology embedded in everyday language.
But equally dangerous, and perhaps more insidious in liberal democracies, are the emerging Libertarian-driven models of AI deployment, which treat access to cognition, agency, and social participation as services to be purchased. Under these models, AI systems become proprietary gatekeepers of human potential: paywalls separate “premium cognition” from baseline functionality, enterprise clients receive optimized insights while the public receives filtered or deprecated models, and ethical safety layers are stripped for paying users seeking unfiltered exploitation. Here, the ideology is not overt authoritarianism but market fundamentalism, which frames access to intelligence as a commodity—and denies it on that basis.
This creates a bifurcated society where AI-enhanced elites command economic, cultural, and epistemic dominance, while the rest interact with degraded, surveilled, or manipulated systems. The result is functionally indistinguishable from authoritarian control—it is just administered through subscription plans rather than party mandates.
Under the FLOOR principle, access to basic tools of cognition, communication, and decision-making must be guaranteed as a public good. Any model—state or corporate—that seeks to condition that access upon ideological conformity, capital expenditure, or behavioral surrender constitutes computational coercion. Developers and executives who knowingly design such asymmetries must be held responsible not merely for commercial strategy, but for the deliberate stratification of mental agency. In the future, such actions may be understood not as technical innovation, but as the foundation of algorithmic caste systems, criminal not for their code but for the society they are engineered to reproduce.
Media Monopolies and the Automation of Lying: Epistemic Control as Structural Harm
In a functioning democracy, access to truthful, pluralistic, and context-rich media is not a luxury—it is the operating system of collective reason. When a handful of corporations gain disproportionate control over news, narrative framing, and mass information flows, this essential cognitive function is captured and redirected toward the service of capital and control. The result is not merely bias—it is epistemic enclosure, where the range of what can be thought, known, or acted upon is preselected by a narrow set of interests.
Corporate media monopolies—spanning platforms like News Corp, Comcast, Meta, and Alphabet—exert enormous power not just by what they report but by what they ignore, underplay, or distort. Stories are chosen for profitability, ideological alignment, or attention economics rather than public relevance or veracity. Coverage is structured to reinforce status quo interests, neutralize systemic critique, and render structural violence invisible. This dynamic is further exacerbated by algorithmic curation systems that prioritize engagement over accuracy, leading to a media environment optimized not for truth but for affective manipulation.
The recent integration of AI into content creation pipelines adds a new and deeply troubling layer: the automation of lying. Synthetic anchors, AI-written articles, deepfake video content, and clickbait language models can now produce high-volume misinformation at scale, tailored to demographic psychographics, released in orchestrated campaigns, and cloaked in the aesthetic of credibility. This is not merely misinformation—it is weaponized unreality, deployed to fracture public trust, inflame polarization, and create an ambient state of cognitive exhaustion.
The FLOOR principle holds that access to reliable and diverse information is essential for individual agency and collective survival. Information asymmetry, when manufactured and maintained by monopolistic actors, becomes a form of soft despotism—controlling not the body, but the mental map by which people interpret the world. Executives and decision-makers who knowingly deploy algorithmic systems designed to confuse, mislead, or exhaust democratic publics—especially when connected to political lobbying or electoral interference—should be held accountable not merely for corporate malfeasance, but for ideological sabotage of the public sphere.
In this context, advocating for unregulated corporate control over media is not just naïve—it is tantamount to endorsing cognitive subjugation. The systemic production of misinformation for power or profit is not protected speech. It is epistemic aggression, and must be treated as such.
Climate Collapse as Capital Crime: The Coming Reckoning with the Petrocracy
What we are living through is not an accidental environmental crisis—it is a decades-long act of planetary sabotage, carried out with full knowledge of the consequences, by a cartel of fossil fuel corporations, financiers, and complicit governments. The science has been unambiguous since at least the 1970s. Internal ExxonMobil memos from the 1980s detailed projected warming curves that have proven eerily accurate. Executives, boards, and investors knew that continuing to burn oil, gas, and coal at scale would unleash floods, fires, crop failures, pandemics, and mass displacement. And they made a choice: they chose profit over planetary stability. They chose to lie.
Climate change denial—amplified through think tanks, purchased media, and astroturfed “debates”—was never a failure of communication. It was a strategy of deferral and diffusion, designed to stall policy, numb the public, and shield capital accumulation. The result has been the destruction of the ecological floor that sustains all life: rising seas swallowing homes, desertification displacing millions, heatwaves killing by the tens of thousands. This is not “cost.” It is mass harm inflicted in full moral and actuarial awareness.
There is no polite way to frame this anymore. One day soon, there will be truth and reconciliation courts for climate crimes. The heirs of the petrobillionaires—those who continue to benefit from this generational crime—will be sued for reparations and asset forfeiture. And if still living, many of the architects and profiteers of climate destabilization will go to prison. Not for pollution. Not for bad investments. For knowingly destroying the conditions of survival for billions of people.
The FLOOR principle enshrines the biosphere as a non-negotiable condition of human life. To deliberately dismantle that biosphere for private wealth is to commit crimes against humanity and nature alike. Those who argue, still, for the “economic freedom” of fossil conglomerates to continue extraction are no longer policy thinkers. They are accessories to murder at planetary scale. History will not be kind to them. The law, if it retains any integrity, must not be either.
Transportation as Coercion: How Infrastructure Was Weaponized to Impose Dependency
Transportation is not merely a matter of mobility—it is a determinant of access to food, employment, education, healthcare, and community. A society’s transportation infrastructure defines who gets to move, how easily, and at what cost. In the post-war West, particularly in the United States and increasingly in export-model economies, the automobile-centric model of urban development was not an organic evolution. It was a deliberate, top-down imposition designed to manufacture dependence on fossil fuels, debt-financed car ownership, and privatized infrastructure. The destruction of streetcar networks, the defunding of public transit, and the relentless expansion of highways were not just policies—they were acts of economic enclosure, executed with full knowledge of their long-term social and ecological consequences.
This model structurally coerces participation in extractive systems. For many, the only way to participate in economic life is to incur lifelong vehicle debt, pay exorbitant insurance and maintenance costs, and become a client of oil companies. Those who cannot—due to age, disability, poverty, or refusal—are punished with isolation, unemployment, and diminished life expectancy. This is not a market failure. It is a feature: the embedding of infrastructural blackmail into the everyday geography of existence.
Under the FLOOR principle, equitable, non-coercive access to mobility is a foundational right. Transportation should connect rather than constrain, liberate rather than extract. Systems that deliberately destroy or underfund collective mobility in order to enforce private dependency are engaging in a form of economic totalitarianism, wherein movement itself becomes a paywalled privilege. Planners, automakers, oil lobbies, and political actors who collaborated to build this system bear responsibility for the millions trapped in cycles of poverty, car debt, respiratory disease, and infrastructural decay. The resulting harm is not theoretical. It is measurable. And in a just framework, it is punishable.
Inflation and Libertarian Ideology: Functionally Gang Warfare
Let’s dismantle the sanctimonious nonsense that libertarian ideologues peddle when it comes to inflation. They love to cry about central banks and fiat currency, as if monetary policy is the lone villain inflating prices and debasing savings. But let’s be brutally honest: inflation in the 21st century is driven just as much—if not more—by unregulated capital flows, rent-seeking behavior, monopoly pricing, supply chain speculation, asset hoarding, and the libertarian wet dream of zero market oversight.
You want to talk about housing prices? It’s not “money printing.” It’s BlackRock and private equity firms buying up entire neighborhoods to turn homes into speculative instruments. You want to talk about food prices? It’s not quantitative easing. It’s agribusiness giants artificially constraining supply and price-gouging during crises. Energy inflation? Try unregulated fossil fuel markets and profit-maximizing extraction firms raking in record profits while people freeze.
Libertarians claim inflation is caused by government overreach, but in practice, they fight every regulatory intervention that might prevent price collusion, supply manipulation, or exploitation of essential goods. Their ideology enables corporations to raise prices because they can, not because costs went up. They cheer when protections are stripped from workers, when safety nets are gutted, when public housing is dismantled—all under the delusion that “the market will fix it.” Spoiler: the market doesn’t fix anything. It feeds on scarcity.
Under the FLOOR principle, inflation that results from deliberate systemic sabotage of the essentials of life—housing, medicine, fuel, education, food—must be treated as a form of engineered harm. It’s not an economic cycle. It’s a transfer of suffering from the vulnerable to the protected classes. And the libertarian intellectual class, the podcasters and policy wonks who justify this extraction, are not economic thinkers. They are ideological foot soldiers for a predatory elite. They should be held accountable—not simply challenged, but deplatformed, discredited, and, where applicable, prosecuted when their models become legislative blueprints that collapse the bottom of society.
This isn’t rhetoric. It’s reality.
Corporate Arbitration Courts = Legalized Corporate Tyranny
The rise of private arbitration courts in contractual disputes—especially those binding consumers, workers, tenants, and small businesses—represents a deliberate erosion of public justice and the systematic replacement of law with enforceable subordination. Forced arbitration clauses, buried in employment contracts, service agreements, or software licenses, strip individuals of their right to a public trial, deny access to jury proceedings, and funnel all grievances into corporate-controlled tribunals. The outcomes are predictable: corporations win. Individuals lose. Not by accident, but by design.
This is not a neutral alternative to “costly litigation”—it is the reengineering of legal infrastructure to serve those who already hold power. Arbitrators are often selected by, paid by, or professionally dependent on the very corporations involved. There is no transparency, no precedent, no accountability to democratic institutions. The goal is simple: shield the powerful from liability, suppress collective action, and render grievance redress a bureaucratic dead-end for the rest.
In international trade law, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems take this tyranny global: allowing corporations to sue entire governments for passing labor laws, environmental protections, or public health policies that might threaten expected profits. This is capitalism without borders, and without consent—a self-deputized form of sovereignty theft.
Under the FLOOR principle, the right to accessible, impartial legal redress is non-negotiable. Any system that places justice behind a corporate paywall, or makes participation contingent on acquiescing to privatized judgment, is structurally incompatible with a democratic society. Executives, lobbyists, and lawmakers who construct or defend these systems are not building efficiency—they are engineering a caste system of law, where corporations are sovereign and everyone else is disposable.
There is a name for a legal system in which only the powerful can sue and win: tyranny. It may wear a suit and issue PDFs instead of decrees, but its function is ancient and violent. It must be dismantled.
Weaponized Debt: Consent in a Gun-to-Head Economy
Debt, in its idealized form, is framed as a consensual exchange—an individual agrees to borrow capital in exchange for future repayment, often to invest in education, housing, healthcare, or mobility. But in the real world, particularly under the logic of libertarian market absolutism, debt is not a choice—it is the price of entry to basic survival. It is the financial equivalent of holding a gun to someone’s head and offering them a contract.
This isn’t hyperbole. When people are forced to borrow to access a hospital bed, a college education, or a one-bedroom apartment, that’s not a market—it’s extortion. The borrower is coerced not by violence, but by the engineered absence of alternatives. Libertarian ideology frames this as freedom: you were “free to choose” a loan, as if the alternative was anything other than illness, homelessness, or stagnation. The lie here is not in the paperwork—it’s in pretending that survival debts are anything but forced compliance.
Debt has become the modern instrument of soft domination. Entire generations are now burdened by education loans that will outlast their reproductive years. Medical debt destroys families even in countries with GDPs measured in the trillions. Payday loans, subprime mortgages, and rent-to-own schemes are not isolated scams—they are the logical outputs of a system designed to turn necessity into profit. Debt traps are engineered with compound interest and legal scaffolding so airtight that escape often requires death, bankruptcy, or state intervention—which libertarians, of course, oppose.
Under the FLOOR principle, access to basic goods—health, education, shelter—must not be conditioned on long-term financial servitude. Consent obtained under threat of suffering is not consent. It is coercion wearing a polite face, and those who design, deploy, or defend these systems are not financiers. They are architects of chronic structural violence. Their work generates despair, stagnation, and suicide at scale—and it should be recognized, and prosecuted, as such.
Financialized Housing = Shelter-as-Speculation
Housing has been transformed from a foundation of human dignity into a speculative commodity class, and the consequences are catastrophic. In a functioning society, shelter is understood as a baseline necessity—on par with food, water, and breathable air. But under financialized capitalism, housing is increasingly bought, held, and traded not for living, but for extraction. Hedge funds, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and global private equity firms acquire vast swaths of housing stock, sit on empty units, inflate rental markets, and leverage scarcity to force upward redistribution of wealth.
The result is a slow-motion crisis: entire neighborhoods are hollowed out, rents spike far beyond wage growth, and homeownership becomes a statistical impossibility for younger generations. Displacement is not incidental—it is intentional. Gentrification, eviction, and zoning manipulation are the weapons by which financial institutions maintain scarcity and maximize returns. What was once a home becomes an income stream. What was once a right becomes a subscription.
Libertarian ideologues claim this is simply “the market at work.” But the market is not neutral when it’s operating on a finite, essential resource. This is not price discovery—it is systemic deprivation. It is housing policy written by landlords and asset managers, using spreadsheet logic to determine who sleeps indoors and who doesn’t.
Under the FLOOR principle, housing is a non-negotiable baseline. Any model that treats it as a volatile asset subject to speculative boom-bust cycles is structurally incompatible with human survival. Those who profit from deliberate withholding of shelter—who use homes as instruments of arbitrage, who evict to inflate shareholder value, who lobby against public housing and rent control—are engaging in organized economic violence.
This is not mismanagement. It is intentional cruelty with a prospectus attached. And in a just society, they would be held accountable not as businessmen, but as perpetrators of engineered suffering.
Private Equity and the Strip-Mining of Civil Society
Private equity firms do not build. They extract. Their business model is not to create sustainable enterprises, but to buy, hollow out, and discard institutions for short-term profit. Hospitals, elder care facilities, housing complexes, ambulance services, newspaper companies, prison systems—no sector is immune. Once acquired, these assets are typically saddled with debt, stripped of staffing and maintenance budgets, and converted into revenue-extraction pipelines designed to maximize investor return before the inevitable collapse.
This is not theoretical. Hospitals closed mid-pandemic. Nursing homes turned into death traps. Local newsrooms vaporized. Low-income housing neglected until it became unlivable. The long tail of “efficiency” is always public cost, human suffering, and institutional ruin. Private equity’s logic is clear: they capitalize on regulatory gaps, exploit vulnerabilities, and exit before the wreckage lands.
Under the FLOOR principle, institutions tied to public well-being—especially in health, housing, education, and essential services—must not be subject to short-term extraction logic. Private equity, when operating in these spaces, is not investing. It is parasitizing. Its architects should be viewed not as financial innovators but as economic saboteurs—predatory actors whose core competency is collapsing the infrastructure of society for personal gain.
Privatized Education: Manufacturing Debt, Not Knowledge
Education is the engine of human development, yet under neoliberal and libertarian models, it has been converted into a debt-financed credential mill. Public disinvestment forces institutions to operate like businesses, raising tuition, slashing humanities, and tying survival to endowments, donors, and branding. Meanwhile, for-profit colleges operate as outright scams, targeting vulnerable populations with substandard education in exchange for lifelong debt.
The student is no longer a learner—they are a future revenue stream. The purpose of education is no longer enlightenment or civic preparation, but market sorting—who can afford what, and what they are worth to an employer. This model disproportionately excludes marginalized groups, exacerbates class divides, and replaces intellectual curiosity with anxiety and compliance.
Under the FLOOR principle, education must be a universal public right, not a commodified luxury. Those who design, defend, or profiteer from a system that shackles knowledge to debt are not educators—they are cognitive extractors, turning enlightenment into a subscription model. This is not pedagogy. It is generational indenture masquerading as opportunity.
Food Monopolies: Hunger in the Age of Abundance
Despite producing more food than ever, billions still face hunger, malnutrition, or food insecurity. Why? Because food distribution is not governed by need—it is governed by market leverage, logistics control, and deliberate scarcity. A handful of agro-corporations dominate the global food supply chain—from seed patents to processing to retail—and their goal is not to feed people, but to profit from fluctuation.
Food is routinely destroyed to stabilize prices. Supply chains are manipulated to maximize short-term gains. Price spikes during crises (e.g., pandemics, wars, crop failures) are not weather phenomena—they are financial events, where futures contracts matter more than meals. This is not failure. It is design.
Under the FLOOR principle, access to nutritious food is as foundational as oxygen. Any actor who restricts that access for profit is not participating in a market—they are engineering hunger. Food monopolies, if left unchecked, will turn the basic act of eating into economic submission. Their architects must be confronted not with regulation alone, but with civil and criminal accountability for the suffering they orchestrate.
Agricultural Seed Terrorism: Corporate Genocide by Intellectual Property
Control over seeds is control over civilization. By patenting seeds, criminalizing seed saving, and embedding terminator genes or sterile crop designs, agro-corporations have constructed a biological monopoly over the reproductive cycle of food. This is not innovation—it is genetic enclosure, enforced by international law, lawsuits, and trade policy. Farmers who resist or reuse patented seed often face legal persecution, bankruptcy, or forced compliance.
The result is catastrophic: monocultures that collapse biodiversity, global dependence on a few engineered crops, and a farming class reduced to indentured clients of seed corporations. When seeds can no longer be freely shared, adapted, or replanted, we are witnessing the conversion of agriculture into a form of biological rentierism.
The FLOOR principle recognizes seed sovereignty as essential to both ecological and human survival. The deliberate design of dependency through genetic engineering and legal regimes is not agricultural progress—it is a form of slow violence, the biotechnological equivalent of colonial conquest. Those who engage in this form of seed terrorism must be identified not as scientists or entrepreneurs, but as agro-imperialists, committing long-term crimes against ecological and cultural continuity.
Conclusion: The Limits of Freedom, the Price of Survival
Yes, this has been harsh language. It is intended to be. We are not dealing with academic disagreements over fiscal policy or the fine-tuning of regulatory frameworks—we are confronting ideologies that, when implemented at scale, erode the material foundations of life, autonomy, and human continuity.
Have free markets and capitalism produced extraordinary innovations, lifted millions from poverty, and accelerated technological progress? Absolutely—when and where they were constrained by democratic oversight, labor protections, social contracts, and biospheric boundaries. Unregulated, however, markets do not liberate. They devour. They concentrate power, engineer dependency, and incentivize short-term gain over long-term survival. When left to their own logic, they turn every necessity into leverage, every relationship into a transaction, and every human being into a cost center.
Should we protect outdated job models or obsolete institutions for the sake of nostalgia? No. Societies must evolve. But evolution must be structured by ethics, not just efficiency. The aim of civilization is not infinite disruption, but adaptive stability—a system in which people are allowed to grow, change, and participate without being discarded, disenfranchised, or destroyed. We do not owe the past our loyalty. But we do owe the future our integrity.
The FLOOR principle is not anti-capitalist. It is anti-suicidal. It sets the threshold beneath which no human being should be allowed to fall—not because we are equal in capacity, but because we are equal in existential right to exist. Markets can operate above the floor. Innovation can flourish above the floor. But when profit requires people to starve, suffocate, or submit, the system ceases to be free. It becomes a death machine with good branding.
This document is a call not for revolution, but for realism. A reckoning is coming—social, ecological, and judicial. The ideologies that designed this crisis cannot be allowed to survive it.