Alas, I haven't the time to get back into this just now. But I will note that Robin seems to be responding to a paraphrased version of my critique from many months ago. This includes some things I definitely said, but some I either am sure I didn't (or which don't sound like anything I would say) or if I did, I now wouldn't stand behind. E.g., that Albert & Hahnel exalt "democratic form over democratic substance." I have no idea what that means.
As to substantive criticisms and replies, I will only say that I would be pretty suprised if I were or had been the only person to tax the Albert & Hahnel model with the Hayekian objection that the system is virtually guaranteed to get highly inaccurate outputs. The arguments for this were quoted or at least paraphrased in part in the stuff Robin replied to. they included the point that people can't forecast their needs accurately, that they have incentives to exaggerate their preferences and understand their ability to contribute, and so forth. Readers can judge for themselves the extent tow hich Robin actually answers these objections instead of simply contraverting them, saying he's thought of them, and quoting Authorities who think he's just fine on this point.
Me, alas, I have to go write some judicial opinion draft, work up a paper on Hegel and Marx on the Rule of Law,a nd study for the Professional Resposnsibility exam.
--jks