>
externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about themEntities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?
When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them.
> You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.
What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know?
> Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights.
Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?
> As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.
That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".
Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?
When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them.
> You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.
What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know?
> Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights.
Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?
> As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.
That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".