I got a bit stuck here trying to start the book. It turns out that my prejudice against leftist ideas is so strong that I simply cannot manage to begin describing the object of acquaintance without immediately injecting criticism into the text, which, of course, one should not do, as it contradicts the purpose of the book.

Therefore, I have set those attempts aside for now and approached it from a different angle. What are the reasons one might dislike the market, market supporters, the description of the market in libertarian sources, and so on?

Libertarians consider the key positive quality of the market order to be that it is a space of voluntary transactions. During a market transaction, everyone parts with what they value less and acquires what they value more. And here, of course, a criticism arises, which I would divide into two categories.

First. Within a market transaction, a person parts with money and acquires a brick, which will now definitely not fly into his car. Or a vaccine for a virus that accidentally escaped from a laboratory. Or a permit for something he could do without a permit anyway. Or the enforcement of a ban preventing others from doing what the person parting with money would like to forbid them from doing. Or a slave. Or a political post in the state…

Within a market system—the leftists claim—anything can become a commodity. And these artificial constraints of yours, like NAP and self-ownership, which for some reason are supposed to remove certain categories of things from the category of commodities, are non-functional nonsense because there are no proper instrumental criteria for them; it is all a matter of personal ethical norms and general taste, since you yourselves claim that all values are subjective.

The second grievance against the market consists of the claim made by its adepts: money in the market is earned through the utility provided to other people. And if that is the case—the leftists claim—then for you market proponents, the wealthier a person is, the more useful they are to others. Consequently, their opinion is also more valuable. And thus, any online scammer, popular singer, lottery winner, or recipient of a billion-dollar inheritance can respond to any objections against their incredibly valuable opinion by saying: if you are so smart, then show your money.

The further conclusions are quite obvious. Since money is the measure of everything, and people commit evil for its sake, then down with money. Since the market allows everything to become a commodity, it is the rejection of the market that restores human dignity to people, for now, a person is not for sale. Since money inflates intellectual empties, then without money, the voice of the true intellectual will be heard more clearly.

I will stop here, because I am restraining myself and trying to refrain from criticizing everything said above. For now, I would rather know your opinion on whether I have gone down the right path in my reflections.