I agree with this totally, in theory. As other commenters have pointed out, there are flaws but what institutions don’t have flaws?

My critique boils down to the question of how do we ensure, to the best of our ability and foresight, that market forces don’t end up corrupting the very institution that was designed to keep the market in check? One commenter’s example of SCOTUS is a fine example of exactly this sort of thing happening. You had a few ideas to counter that scenario, but I’m afraid those alone won’t be enough.


But do they have to be enough? A courtroom of ideas would have to evolve and grow just like any other institution. I believe it’s of vital importance to try and do something like this. It’s also vitally important to recognize the dangers of doing so and remain vigilant of corruption.

It’s a start though. It’s a proposed solution to a very real and dangerous problem. I would support the implementation of such an institution