[ndarwincorn]

A fair point, and I don't have a silver bullet. But wherever we talk about markets optimizing utility we need to acknowledge that to-date that's purely theoretical, and hand-waving away externalities and the commons has brought the entire planet to the brink of ecological collapse.

In some ways, the tyranny and 'sub-optimal' allocation of central planning seems preferable.

I'm more on the mandatory cooperative enterprise boat. But like I said, I don't have a good solution.

[cortesoft]

I think if you are going to point out that every market economy has failed to properly handle externalities, you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens.

All systems are going to have powerful people who work the system for their own gain... mitigating that is the primary problem of government design.

[ndarwincorn]

> you also should acknowledge that every centrally planned forced cooperative has ended up run by abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens.

I mean, that's my point. That abusive leaders who do not take care of their citizens in an economy centrally planned to not destroy the Earth is preferable to a "free" one that does.

It's a false dichotomy. The capitalist world has included horrible authoritarian governments that have perpetuated the same atrocities against humans as your "abusive leaders", just like these centrally planned economies haven't exactly been environmental stewards.

All else equal, I'm saying that I'd prefer a sub-optimal centrally planned economy that guaranteed strong environmental protections.