My model for an anarchy-based system would definitely work.
Unfortunately, I have seen its flaws.
Upon presenting to various audiences, even the most liberal ones showed their true colours.
"But, if we allow the people to determine what kind of news gets out and receives prominence, what if they vote for the WRONG news?"
Already, ALL the liberals are displaying bias. Apparently, 'liberals' are just like the conservatives who want people to do the RIGHT things, read the RIGHT things and fuck only in the approved, RIGHT manners.
"Explain," I told them.
"Well, I was watching the news the other day, and it was just five days straight of just this news."
"Ah, and now you are saying you do not like to be told what to watch and what is presented to you. Wouldn't a model in which you yourself decide what to read and what is displayed be more appealing?"
"Yeah, but we're worried about OTHER PEOPLE."
Worried. About other people's choices. That sounds very dictator-like, not liberal at all.
This is the response I've been getting about my anarchy model. From various quarters, with people who are meant to be the most liberal-minded of them all.
These people, I concluded, are not at all liberal. They are merely self-absorbed. In fact, most people are self-absorbed.
If I am to design a model that makes money, it should not hold any noble aspirations of Truth, Freedom and Independence, but appeal only to the self-obsessed nature of humans.
In the end, they still want to be told what to do, with the extra condition that they agree with what they are being told, on a personal level. Not on an ideological one.
I should learn my lesson. I might as well abandon my quest, which would have saved the world, and just do something that would make money. After all, I can't make people choose what I myself think is right.