[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by B~E

Alright. Explain to me how you can go from a centralized economy to a "ruling group [that] has more and more authority over all human ends as the system proceeds closer and closer to socialism". Explain to me why a centralized economy not only forbid people from working toward their goals, but it also prevent people from being critical of the government and the state, and to organize themselves to pressure the state for it to be accountable. Why would it breed an undemocratic political system?

…

In a centralized economy, you still need to demonstrate why the central authority, even if it hold a monopoly over ressources, will necessarily work against your desires. The state can be influenced through lobbying, election, running for office and protest. the state can abe held accountable, unlike more powerful actor in a truly free market.

Both of these have the same underlying question - why is a centralized economy incompatible/unstable with democracy.

Let’s assume that it is unanimously expressed by the people of a country that the government should create a complete economic plan. The only result of a legislative body will be inefficiency because neither the legislators nor their constituent will be able to agree on any particular plan. People can agree on a broad phrase like general welfare, however without a unanimous ethical code – it is not the typical asking to agree where people can, but to agree on everything (as it will direct all the resources of the nation, and by the definition of an economic means I made, all the power to effect likes and dislikes). So there is no ability to create one comprehensive plan.

The other democratic alternative is to break up the comprehensive plan and vote on other issues, however this is also ineffective. An economic plan cannot be a comprehensive economic plan without a unitary conception – the complex plan requires all the parts to be carefully adjusted with each other. This would either result in no economic plan or one that satisfies no one because this once again requires a unanimous ethical code. This would also be the result of delegating the powers to experts as each group of experts would have economic plans aimed at a different interpretation of a common good.

Either way, within the democratic process, it is not possible to have a comprehensive economic plan. Drawing upon this, an economy in which there is the allocation of resources by government is incompatible with democracy meaning that 1) it would breed an undemocratic system and 2) one would not have the power to influence the government trough lobbying, election, running for office, and protest because one would no longer live under a democracy.

The underlying conflict between social liberalism and government allocation of resources is the conflict between individualism and collectivism. The needs and likes/dislikes of everyone are so complex that it isn't possible to deal with through democracy or to even have a consensus of them - what likes/dislikes should be approved and which shouldn't.

Originally Posted by B~E

Liberalism is also about the ability to assume the individual and collective identity of your choice. Can a centralized economy forbid this?

What I am trying to say is that there is no separate economic motive from social liberalism - restricting how an individual can allocate his or her resources is a loss of power in "the ability to assume the individual and collective identity of your choice." So yes - a centralized economy does forbid this.

Originally Posted by B~E

In a free market, chances are that you wont have any money to freely.

Hey, that sounds fantastic. If you have a fortune. Afterall, hunting only make sense if you're an hunter.

Why wouldn’t I have money? Why wouldn’t the relative and absolute standard of living increase under competitive capitalism?

Originally Posted by B~E

No, this is only a theorical discussion, dont bring any "but this is how it work in real life anyway" argument.

That is how it works in theory as well as real life.