> Uhhh got it, so the government decides how much of my money I need to direct to arts/digital goods?

Yes. It's not too different from taxes, but you have more choice. We could also include other projects like research, public parks, etc. The point is not to centralize control but to avoid artificial and unnecessary scarcity.

> You want to replace a world where I can freely allocate my capital to goods that are artificially scarce [...] with one where I'm forced to allocate my capital goods to $0 marginal cost goods (you aren't opposed to this enforcement, though?).

Yes, I want to replace a world where things are artificially scarce with one where they are not.

> presumably you are morally opposed to this enforcement

It's a question of efficiency. Limiting access to goods with zero marginal cost is just a waste.

But yes, I'm morally opposed to reducing the general welfare.

> I'll take the one where I have fuller choice if in either circumstance I lose some freedom.

Then you should be in favor of removing artificial scarcity. It removes people's freedom to use media for no good reason. Of course, if you're wealthy enough that this does not restrict you, you may benefit. But don't forget that in that case, you defend your privileges at the expense of others' freedom.

> This also doesn't address issues that would certainly arise from the cost of enforcement, the likelihood of fraud, etc.

Sorry for not writing a fully fleshed out bill ready to be passed into law.

> You should take a basic economics class if you want to fully understand how markets succeed vs centrally planned mechanisms.

No thanks, I already know the crude model of the economy a basic economics class teaches.

> 1) Every individual is unique and has unique preferences.

> 2) These preferences are private and non-discoverable by external parties but are well-known, to a point, to the individual.

The need of companies for input products, however, is discoverable.

> Proof

No, evidence. This isn't math.

> 3) Since a central planning entity cannot know every individual's preferences

Correct.

> but every individual can

I don't think a psychologist would agree with that statement. But there are good reasons to pretend it's true anyway.

> (think of market economies as distributed systems), overall welfare is maximized by individuals autonomously and freely allocating their personal capital to the goods/services/etc. that they see fit.

Only assuming everyone has the same income or at least the same earning power (working less in exchange for earning less is a valid choice). Otherwise, some peoples' welfare is weighted higher than others'.

> 4) As more and more individuals bid with their capital, up to the point of negative returns for them, for goods/services/etc., producers react to produce more of these,

Of course. If people buy more or less of something than was predicted, you have to change the plan. Central planning can reduce this issue compared to a pile of uncoordinated competing capitalists, but it cannot eliminate it.

That's a problem if calculating a plan takes years. With today's technology, it isn't.

> Think about how much compute goes into the shitty recommendations you get from Google/NFLX/et al. and for how narrow that realm is.

Incompetence isn't the only reason why those recommendations are so shitty. Netflix, at least, tries to push their "originals" and other films and series that are cheap for them. They also try to hide how limited their catalog is, due to intellectual property. They use DRM because their aim is not to provide a good service, but to make a profit. By using DRM they force you to use their client. Capitalism is actually reducing choice and competition here.