3 ms·

So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful c

by panic 11y ago

So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful compared to less (or ultimately none at all). I don't think your argument works. If I drink a swimming pool full of water, I will die. Does that mean I should drink no water at all?

sillygeese 11y ago
Maybe it was poorly phrased. Here's another attempt. Any degree of central planning is harmful to us because: 1) it always represents an opportunity cost compared to people making choices themselves, and 2) the choices made by central planners are not made to benefit the masses (because otherwise they'd just let people make the choices themselves) What would be the point of being in a position to make decisions for other people, if you were just going to do your best to benefit others, instead of yourself?