[sandpaper26]

> the point of a command economy is to deny individuals freedom.

This is an unsupported generalization. Command systems exist to mandate production and distribution of goods, e.g. to ensure sufficient food production and equitable food distribution. They eliminate the "overhead" of competition and the need for marketing. Look at any self-sufficient commune and tell me their internal economy has anything to do with imposing limits on freedom. Don't let your negative feelings toward certain historical examples cloud your understanding of the matter at hand.

[cryptonector]

> > the point of a command economy is to deny individuals freedom.

> This is an unsupported generalization. Command systems exist to mandate production and distribution of goods [...]

This is exactly denying individuals freedom. It's right there in the word "mandate". If you want to produce some thing or service at some price, you don't get to unless that's what the planners want. If you don't want to produce some thing or service at some price, you may be forced to by the planners. You don't have freedom of agency, and you can't have freedom of agency, in a planned economy.

[sandpaper26]

> I own all factories that can produce X, and am by some benefit of scale now the only one reasonably able to make an X-factory. If I didn't do it, probably nobody could.

> I have command of the X-economy and can mandate the production and distribution of these goods

> The intended point of all this is somehow to deny individuals their freedom to fail to create an X factory, rather than to ensure that X gets created and distributed at all

[cryptonector]

This problem always resolves itself naturally. Competitors arise. Disruptive innovators arise. It's a great problem to have precisely because it leads to innovation. Everyone salivates at a cut of what the 800lb gorilla is taking, and the gorilla grows slow as it grows large, and it sits on its laurels extracting rent (vendor lock-in), and then the gorilla gets out-innovated.

[sandpaper26]

Regardless of whether this is a "problem" that gets "resolved," surely you understand you have failed to support your conjecture that my command of the economy is purpose-built to limit freedom.

What if there is no profit? What if I operate at 100% loss, year after year, propped up by the subsidy of a fiat currency, to provide something everyone needs, and don't think the goods and services which sustain life should come at any cost? I am overwhelmingly popular. Nobody is going to seriously compete with me, although they're free to try. Nobody is forced to work for me. Whose freedom have I limited? Doesn't this sound like a lot of things we take for granted every day which are centrally planned?

[cryptonector]

You contradicted yourself and you ignore me pointing out that contradiction. You have a good day/night.

[sandpaper26]

If you pointed out any contradiction, you did an unfortunately poor job of elucidating exactly where that contradiction occurred. Furthermore, you failed to support your claims even a little bit.

But I hope you sleep well! It's crucial for proper brain function.

[nradov]

There have never been any self-sufficient communes. They always depend on external inputs. Over the long run, command economies always collapse into famine. It's impossible to command most people to work hard over a long career without free market incentives.

[sandpaper26]

Over time, all systems collapse eventually. That sentiment is worthless.

Furthermore, nobody said anything about working hard.

Surely you're not about to claim that all pre-colonial civilizations with functional governments either somehow had free market incentives or collapsed into famine.

"There have never been X" is always an extraordinary claim and you've done a poor job making it.