Again, it's not a matter of planning or not planning, but who plans for whom. A planned economy is commonly known as an economy where production, distribution, and prices are controlled by a central government, even if the production is not necessarily owned by the state (which would be socialism).

Do I plan for myself or does a central authority make my plans for me?

A forecast that I can choose to either ignore or put into use for my own subjective plans wouldn't be the same thing as being forced to comply with the groupthink of one harmonious plan put forth by the state. I can decide "Well, the forecast says my decision is risky, but if I'm right it will pay off big time." No one has a crystal ball and tea leaves have been known to be highly ineffective. If a bank asks for my plans, those are my plans that I made myself. Not without considering many factors though, which I did not make up in my head.

Sometimes a price is not perfect, but much of the time I find that it's just people thinking that a price "should" be this or we "deserve" that. Should and deserve got nothing to do with market prices. It's just a messenger. Price is based on human action rather than human talk, and quite frankly, I'm glad for that because what people say and what they actually do are often completely different.

That's why I felt it was important to type the last paragraph in my post. I have no problem with an entity having comparative or competitive advantage whether because of scarcity or because of excellence in their work, and for them to reject a trade offer if it is below what they think their goods or services are worth. Voluntary trade works both ways. If this means a high price is needed for them to sell, that is the way the market goes sometimes. Likely, other people will see that price signal and try to find ways to offer comparable services though in a competitive market, thus increasing supply.

If, for example, two farmers are trading and one wants to trade a basket of tomatoes for a few dozen chicken eggs, this is a voluntary and mutually beneficial trade. However, if it is found that the one farmer maliciously caused the other farmer's tomato crop to die so he could manufacture an advantage, than this is not a voluntary and mutually beneficial trade. That is why I believe common rules are necessary to ensure trade is voluntary and mutually beneficial. If the crop died naturally or because of the owner's mismanagement, then it's a tough break and do what you can and move one. Some people are clever though with hiding sabotage as an act of God.

Take the broken window fallacy. Theft is a common rule that everyone can understand and knows they should not do. Bastiat posits that if a window maker secretly hired a mischievous boy to throw rocks through shop owners windows so that he could get more business, this would be on the same level of theft. I agree with that assessment and that is why common rules (but not authoritarianism) are still necessary in a free market.

As for the necessity, I hold to the subjective theory of value and marginal utility. I believe there is no proper price other than what a good trades for in a voluntary market. What if an owner of a stand of timber properly manages his timber so that he is set up to harvest trees for an indefinite amount of time. He thins out weed trees and manages the desirable trees that will grow straight and tall for lumber harvest every few years. Now someone tells him, "But we NEED more wood! You've only harvested 20% of your timber and you must cut more of your trees down and sell them at "x" price!" He knows that he cannot do this because if he does cut trees that are not at an optimal stage to be cut, it will cut his future out. The trees that will grow back in the open space will be short, squatty, undesirable trees and it will be after his lifetime and much TSI work before the timber stand will return to a optimal state for long-term profitability. This is really a case of a "tragedy of the commons".and I obviously support private management of resources.

Horseshit. Maybe it's not the only way to have a planned economy, but is was most definitely a planned economy on a grand scale, one of the biggest examples of a planned economy. The OP brought it up anyway, and I just gave my two cents on it.