The polite thing would have been to ask if your summaries correctly reflected my positions before going all Kelo v New London on it. I'm not interested in defending your assessments of my positions. We've done this enough times that neither of us deserves to be straw-manned. Here, let me give you an actual point of discussion that we can debate so that this is two-sided instead of one-sided:

1) We need government to solve the tragedy of the commons. No economic or political system exists without externalities and externalities require regulation in order to protect powerless stakeholders. Or, in plain English, "government should minimize collateral damage to innocent bystanders regardless of the political or economic system." Note the use of "should" rather than "does" or "will" because, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time."

The motive of an elected official is different from the motive of a business. That diversity of motive prevents the wants of the business from externalizing all over citizens. Toll roads, for example, externalize all the fuck over the poor. A ferry is effectively a toll road with zero alternatives and the 2nd and 4th largest ferry systems in the world both operate in and around Puget Sound. Both are heavily subsidized. And on the islands with ferry service, poor people can make a living. On the islands without ferry service, rich people keep their vacation homes, caretakers and float planes. Thing of it is, rich or poor you generate sewage, garbage, carbon dioxide and pollution. Got a friend with a vacation rental in the Philippines. The rich v poor divide there is hella starker than Puget Sound.

These are not "difficult" problems, and government doesn't "appear" to make the problem worse- I've lived on a lake before and after low-nitrogen fertilizers were implemented and you know what? Krugman's right, you're wrong. But that's pretty much the crux of your argument: "here's one example where things went badly, therefore all solutions within the space are bad." Your own link was about a citizen prevailing over Donald Trump through the help of a non-profit and the judgment of the court. "It doesn't always work" is not logically equivalent to "it never works."

And that, really, is the crux of the libertarian argument: if it doesn't work 100% of the time, throw it away.

I don't need a second point. This is a simple argument for complexity, not a complex argument for simplicity. People need governance by forces other than greed or altruism. People don't like governance by forces other than greed or altruism but that doesn't make them invalid, it makes them unpopular.

Complexity is unpopular. But it generally reflects the truth.