[aninhumer]

>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're suggesting that "externalities" are better handled by rulers

No, they're suggesting that externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them.

But as it happens, yes I tend to think co-ordination problems are solved more effectively by a co-ordinator, rather than decentralised actors.

You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.

>you'd support voluntary co-operation

Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights. You know, a system where people are forced to follow particular rules about resource allocation, regardless of whether they agreed to follow them.

As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources. You can argue that a system of pure property rights minimises it, but please don't pretend that it magically avoids it.

[sukulaku]

> externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them

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".

[aninhumer]

>You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?

Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you want to argue that it is, feel free. But until you do, please stop pretending there is no alternative to your false dichotomy.

>Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?

No, but most people following the rules of their own volition is not sufficient for the system to work. If you make it truly "voluntary", then anyone who doesn't agree can just take whatever they want.

> if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources"

I don't, as I said it's inevitable. I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it.

[sukulaku]

> Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed.

If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you. That's what it would take for voting to actually affect something, otherwise you're just engaging in a pointless ritual.

Of course it's only pointless on the voter's part. People believing in the idea that subjects have a say in how they're ruled sure as hell benefits the rulers!

> I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it

In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!

[aninhumer]

>If you believe the act of dropping a piece of paper into a box actually affects what a politician can do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The power of democracy is that it becomes completely socially unacceptable to ignore what those pieces of paper say.

And indeed the people you're complaining about don't ignore them. They find ways to get what they want despite the system, but they never outright defy it. No one installs themself in office without winning an election (EDIT: In the US), and if anyone ever did there would be rioting in the streets.

>> I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it

>In fact, I've avoided all non-governmental forms of coercion all my life!

I mean that you're pretending your ideology can avoid all coercion, while ignoring the coercion involved in enforcing property rights.