&gt; <i>externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them</i><p>Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know &quot;campaign contributions&quot; are an euphemism for bribes, don&#x27;t you?<p>When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to <i>not</i> care about them.<p>&gt; <i>You can call them &quot;rulers&quot; if you like, but then you&#x27;d be ignoring the concept of democracy.</i><p>What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is <i>extremely</i> convenient for the people who are <i>in no way bound</i> by that act, you know?<p>&gt; <i>Except you don&#x27;t support &quot;voluntary&quot; anything, because you&#x27;re talking about property rights.</i><p>Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don&#x27;t steal from others is that they&#x27;d be punished for it?<p>&gt; <i>As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.</i><p>That&#x27;s probably true in the sense that <i>someone</i> somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with <i>&quot;coercion in the distribution of resources&quot;</i>, then you just can&#x27;t sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are &quot;distributed&quot;.