thanks for responding here. the more i have received responses to this text, the more i have learned that most people have no accurate understanding of what a system engineer is or does. if you refer back to the definition given of a system (from wikipedia), you will see that it really has no inherent 'negative' or problematic aspect to it. the idea of a system is simply one that allows us to define the way that numerous parts/things/entities interact to form a whole. to engineer a system is simply to interact with, create or change a system in a way that is informed and as well thought out (designed) as possible. if such changes are best performed by throwing away all pre-conceived ideas then that's fine with me. the aim is to produce the best possible result, not to try to win a prize for 'best engineer'. in the way that i view things, every person who interacts with a capitalist society is to some extent a system engineer as they interact with and maybe effect/change parts of the whole. the difference here though, is that i have specifically specialised in the theory of systems and the creation of systems, which most haven't and therefore i have had experiences and gained understandings that most haven't. i haven't really touched on this in much depth here as to make my points doesn't really require me to.

"The market is a process, not a system. "

systems contain entities and processes. 'the market' contains individuals, banks, manufacturer's, retailers and others who are all classed as entities that have the own processes for interacting in the system.

"Whether a property claim is legitimate or not is based on whether it is the result of homesteading and voluntary exchange or the use of coercive force."

within the capitalist paradigm, that may be accurate - in an ideal world.. however, in our current world, most of the property claims that exist (as a percentage of the total), exist due to coercive force that was either used in the past or recently. e.g. the remnants of the british empire, being an obvious example and the land 'ownership' of the alleged british royal family.

from my perspective, a balanced approach to land ownership is to completely end it and to liberate the land for all. if it is agreed that particular land is needed for a particular task then ideally the nature of the task needs to be considered and known by all, with agreement potentially being reached by all to allow the use of the land - yet it must never be denied that earth is a sentient being... this is an understanding that is well known by many tribes on earth who have always found capitalist ideas to be akin to madness. the madness can be understood to be such when we learn that for them (and for me), humans on earth can metaphorically be considered to be similar to the bugs on a dog that are just catching a ride on the larger being temporarily. to claim that a human 'owns' part of the larger being is no more sane than to say that the flea 'owns' the part of the dog it is currently sucking on.
just allowing the possibility of this perspective to exist as one 'lens' through which to perceive through, can make a huge difference to how we understand ourselves and life in general.

"Whenever a central planner decides to set prices, mandate exchanges. Restrict trade, or otherwise inyervene in the organic process of the economy, chaos results. Humans aren't something to be engineered. Neither society nor the economy are things that can be effectively planned and adjusted. To believe otherwise is the height of conceit."

what i am saying in my piece is that everything you have just described is exactly how capitalism already is - except that the 'central planners' are simply the conglomerations of power that have the most wealth (such as bankers, large corporations and the associated revolving door of governments). that is a large part of what i am saying. i am not advocating for central planning and control, i am advocating that we realise that the current system is actually everything that it's proponents often claim to be 'bad' for us.. they just deny or don't notice that the current system does exactly what they say it doesn't.