[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.

[cryptonector]

| This is an unsupported generalization. Command systems exist to mandate [...]

There it is. "Unsupported generalization", followed by your own generalization that amounts to the same. I did point it out above.

[sandpaper26]

Claiming that you've made an unsupported generalization, and then making one, is not a contradiction; it's hypocrisy.

In any case, your statement still fails to hold water. Consider the ISS: there is central planning and command of the entire economy of the vessel, from its air, water, and food to its electricity and the time of the astronauts themselves. But the 'point' of this command economy is not to limit freedom; it is to keep the astronauts alive. This is the most extreme example, but obviously there are other situations (ships at sea, camping trips with a group, military operations) where centralized control of the goods produced and services performed serve the goods of the group's goals, and have nothing to do with intentional limits on freedom.