&gt; <i>As for libertarianism - it has some good ideas, but the more extreme forms burst into flames at the first mention of the word &quot;externality&quot;.</i><p>Now correct me if I&#x27;m wrong, but it seems you&#x27;re suggesting that &quot;externalities&quot; are better handled by rulers ruling over their subjects than voluntary co-operation between individuals.<p>That&#x27;s what we have now, you know. Rulers and subjects. There&#x27;s a small elite imposing their will on <i>everyone else</i>, and it seems you think they&#x27;re taking care of externalities better than we could <i>without rulers</i>.<p>Presumably, if you didn&#x27;t think so, you&#x27;d support voluntary co-operation instead of our current societal arrangements.<p>But it&#x27;s pretty damn difficult to believe you sincerely think so, considering we all know corporations around the world are somehow managing to pollute their hearts out despite our benevolent overlords being there to protect and serve us.<p>The people of Beijing can&#x27;t be particularly happy with how their externalities are handled, for example.<p>It&#x27;s like there&#x27;s this thing called &quot;bribery&quot;, and it&#x27;s a really effective way of getting to do whatever the hell you want with the environment, as long as you keep handing money to the right politicians.<p>Oh, and by the way, this way of circumventing any negative consequences for destroying the environment wouldn&#x27;t be available without political power, as you may be able to comperehend.<p>But nevermind, I wrote this message not so much to <i>you</i>, but to some innocent bystander who might happen to read this.