>>One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted

We clearly differ as to what the role of government is, because I do not believe that is one of the governments job at all.

Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

Given the federal tax credit is US Law, I would also like you to point to where in the US Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to "make sure externalities are accounted" I missed that provision in my copy of the Constitution

>>There are many things that do not make sense on the open market

I am sure we are going to disagree widely here as well, as I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent

> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

…which they are doing by encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles. Lotta property is gonna go underwater, the less carbon we emit today, the less needs defending tomorrow.

Maybe, but there is zero evidence that the Tax Credit does what people claim it does, it seems to me people buying EV are doing so regardless of the Tax Credit, instead is simply is a subsidy for people that can already afford the sticker price anyway, i.e wealthy people.

> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less

And managing externalities fits because public things (like the air we breathe) are something we all have a right to, and one person shouldn't be allowed to fuck that up for everyone else unilaterally.

If you believe in protecting individuals and natural rights you have to reserve the power to prevent individuals from interfering with them. I would wager money that you do believe the government should do this to some extent (murder, say, or dumping toxins in your water supply), so it's not some question of principle, just of where you draw the line.

The problem here is mere existence is an externality, if you make the claim that government should have the power to curb externalties then the very idea of limited governance ceases to exist, as a government empowered to control externalities has unlimited power, as everything is an exernality include human breath.

Murder, or Dumping toxins is not on the same vein as CO2 emissions not even close, for former as a theoretical harm that may occur over 100+ years if technology and human behavior does not change naturally something not supported by history

Murder and Dumping toxins has a direct instant harm caused with immediate effect, if you can not see the difference then I am not sure how to continue the conversation

> I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent

The ICE ecosystem already benefits from large involvement of the government in securing fuel supplies. The EV ecosystem also benefits from large involvement of the government in electricity production and distribution. Both sectors benefit hugely from government involvement in road building and maintenance.

The whole transportation industry, and infrastructure in general, is very much not an "invisible hand" sector... More like layer upon layer of government involvement. I think you'd probably disagree with a lot of people who've voted in some form for these things.

> One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted for, and ICEs should not get a free ride by not dealing with their pollution.

Should be a tax on ICE vehicles rather than EV credits. The former is not inflationary and charges directly for the externality.