[Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

The discussion is about the relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs" and fees, and how it could define dust. The question raised is whether breaking all non-economic use cases would be the right move for Bitcoin. It's possible that Bitcoin cannot be a global ledger of all things in order to remain useful and decentralized and that the monetary use case must be its only goal. The author is not advocating for this solution, but rather wants a rational conversation about the incentives and whether this solution would be an effective enough barrier to keep most non-economic transactions off Bitcoin. It's easy enough to evade if every non-economic user simply keeps enough Bitcoin around and sends it back to themselves, but maybe that's enough of a hassle to stop people. This certainly breaks ordinals, since it can never be 1 sat.