> it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. Please don't combine further arguments (which suggest you want to continue the dialogue) with a poisonin

> it's probably not worthwhile to have a conversation. Please don't combine further arguments (which suggest you want to continue the dialogue) with a poisoning of the well. I've enjoyed our mini-conversation so far; if you don't, that's fine, but there's no added value in this part of your sentence. > Your characterization of the US as "centrally planned" In my opinion, the key metrics of central planning are the size of government (e.g. % GDP) and volume of its regulation. The point at which these become excessively centrally planned is hard to define. In my opinion, they have been consistently growing over the past few hundred years in the U.S. and are about 50% and excessive, respectively. I doubt they will cease to stop growing until collapse or malaise. > There's no private property without "central planning" (as you characterize it) of some form. I did mention "minimal" central planning; however, again, you're making an assertion of political philosophy. I do not believe private property requires central planning. See: The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer for example.