While I dislike domain squatting as much as the next tech person that has been watching it for a quarter of a century, the author goes out of their way to evade the elephant in the room regarding their setup.

They say:

> So what's the problem, isn't this a legitimate business? On its face, yes - but it is value-destructive as hell. [reference to supposedly legitimate businesses] The world is better for these companies' existence. ... Domain-Parking is nothing like that. If it wasn't for domain parkers, you'd still get your domain - just for 10$, rather than 10.000$.

You wouldn't get your domain for $10, because someone else would get your domain for $10 instead. It is that simple, they'd beat you to it. How is that any more fair of a determining factor than raising the cost/price? It's not, it's a purely subjective opinion that one determing factor is better than the other, or more fair than the other. It's an argument that having capital to allocate to purchase a domain for eg $10,000 is unfair to everyone else without that much capital. It's false.

By that basis, it's unfair for a business to have $500,000 to buy a nice plot of land in a town square to open a new retail shop. Golly gee, what about all the other people that don't have that money. This is a perpetually reducing argument that goes all the way down to the last person with $0 (the person who gets to own the universe because they have nothing, and everything is unfair toward them accordingly; which then breaks the system morally, which lets you know it's a fraud, it's self-contradictory). It means having enough money to purchase a McDonald's franchise - which is like a magic ticket to a forever nice return on your money (at least historically) - is unfair to everyone else that can't (which is 99% of the world's population). It applies to all routine economic activity, all business function (without exception), and is similarly absurd when applied.

This business over here can't afford new $10k equipment. It's unfair, the competition can afford it. That equipment therefore should be $1 and it's first come first serve. The company making that equipment must be forced to supply it at a loss forever. All equipment derives from natural resources somewhere (which derives from land ownership/control), it's unfair some people can access those natural resources and others can't.

This business over here can't afford to buy a new building. Their competitor can afford a nice new building that draws more customers. It's unfair. Some building owner should be forced to turn over a nice building for pennies on the dollar. Who are these people that get to decide that natural resources like land or building materials are worth something? It should all be $0.01, first come first serve.

Norway and Canada should have to give me their oil resources, I want to screw around with a million barrels of oil per day. I have an idea I want to put into action. Who are they to control natural resources? It should be first come first serve, $0.0001 per barrel of oil. Because I say that's fair. Why should someone with a lot of money be able to buy a million barrels of oil and I can't?

Everyone that owns a house or yard with more space than deemed fair (who decides? the authoritarians of course), must be forced to turn that space over to someone else that wants to use it (for any purpose). You have no choice in who gets to move into your (whoops, it's not your space really) unused space, it's first come first serve. Welcome to hell.

It's unfair that someone else had more time than I did to watch for domain names to buy for $10 in the new system. The counters never stop, that's because the author's alternative will always fail and will never produce the supposed fairness.

Any application of this author's premise would implode into absolute disaster economically. Only authoritarian technocrats would propose it could work and be managed, and they'd come up with all sorts of absurd regulations and systems that had to be followed & implemented perfectly in order for it to even function badly. And in the end, the supposed unfairness would persist regardless. It'll always be proclaimed unfair that another person beat you to a domain based on time (first mover). Maybe if someone gets to a domain first, we can just force them to share it, they get to use the domain every other day, or maybe once per year if we want to increase the fairness factor.