>>13664576 Further I say the resource allocation method is inefficient which is central planning. If you allocate resources inefficiently that means all resources undergo central planning, in a free market no resource is centrally planned and by definition cannot be allocated inefficiently (wasteful use of resources are compensated for by loss which is played back).
>>13664580Free market means free to exchange goods and services without (legal) restriction or coercion. It's completely voluntary.
Free market security would be an example yes, the state has a monopoly on security, so the state is the customer and sole provider that's why security suffers from what all monopolies do from lack of competition. They become inefficient, wasteful, no longer providing good service, etc.
Money is a free market process, just like I don't need to be told what shoes to buy people don't need to be told which money to use. The free market process discovers the best medium, traditionally gold or silver. Once you lose control of decentralized money you're fucked, States can take you to slavery if they control money.
Now you jump from no central planned economy to no rules, that's not correct. You can have rule of law without a state. Law existed prior to states and States historically did not interfere in the law discovery process. Murder and chaos isn't solved, people still commit crimes. By and large people recognize cooperation is more successful than violence, some people don't and they'll always be punished.
>>13664583No
>>13664588Because a business uses profit and loss, they can recognize losses and change but even if they did go bankrupt it only effects a small portion of the overall market unlike a centrally planned economy. Also bankruptcy saves capital goods for future efficient production but a centrally planned economy can still employ those wasted capital goods, increasing inefficiency.
