| > central planning does not fix those deficiencies, it makes them worse How would the system I'm describing make inequality and the resulting conflict worse? > you have to count the communication between the nodes as part of the computation. But surely the nodes themselves must be the ones to perform the physical computation in the end? If the computing power of distributed systems scales exponentially with the number of nodes, why doesn't the computing power of a supercomputer scale exponentially with its number of cores? > Every time socialism fails, socialist ideologues say it's because it wasn't true socialism. Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of countries with much better safety nets than the U.S. The U.S. government is just especially dysfunctional. > I am not saying that governments never do beneficial things. I am saying that governments, on net, will do worse than a free market would do. I guess we just disagree about this. > in many situations there may simply be no way of achieving an optimal result If you take "optimal result" to mean "best possible result," then there is, by definition, always a way of achieving an optimal result. |
Because your system has to be implemented with humans, and humans cannot be trusted with the power to tell other humans what to do. Your system requires that in order to work. (Existing governments also require this in order to work, which is why they're dysfunctional, but your system requires it much more.) A free market does not; in a free market, all transactions are voluntary and nobody is given the power to tell anyone else what to do.
I don't see the point of further discussion since we appear to have a fundamental disagreement about this vital point.