Wingnuts for Central Planning

My conspecifics of the wingnut right subspecies usually agree that central planning fails in the economic sphere. After all, how can central planners replicate the efficiency of the free market in fulfilling individual preferences and determining appropriate prices? Why would they let the government decide what kind of cereal to eat?

With respect to the economy of ideas, however, the wingnuts are all for central planning, especially when it comes to normative propositions. Of course, central planners should dictate what moral system one should live by. After all, there is only one true morality, and they know what it is. Everyone ought to buy into these ideas, so it is no imposition on anyone to lead them to the truth.

Egads! Zounds! This is why they are called wingnuts. If the marketplace of ideas, including normative ones, is replaced by central planning, we will surely get it wrong. Laissez faire, say I. Let there coexist as many ideas and memes as possible, and let them duke it out in the ideational marketplace. Maximum diversity is the best way to insure that some of us get something right. The best ideas will survive and become widely distributed, and they will evolve to meet changing conditions as long as we eschew ideational central planning.

Libertarianism, minarchism and anarchy are systems which would admit the maximum diversity of ideas and lifestyles. Provided that you did not do violence to your conspecifics and that you respected property rights, you would be free to live and believe as you pleased. A wide variety of social structures and normative systems might coexist peacefully.

Another reason to avoid ideational central planning is that it will lead to perpetual strife over increasingly minute matters. Christian theocracy in place? Will the sprinklers or the dunkers be in charge? Dunkers prevail? Child or adult dunking baptism to prevail? Trespass or Debtors in the Lord's Prayer? Calvinists or Arminians? Alcoholic or non-alcoholic communion beverage? There is no compromising truth; therefore, the tendency to schism will lead to civil warfare.