> Yes, but meaningless. If you want something to change, you typically don't settle for changing it by one in two billion.

With this I agree, and I mentioned in my original response at the end that my utility curve didn't include going beyond changing my consumption habits. But I did want to make it clear that there was an impact (and there are a growing number of people that are taking the same action so the aggregate marginal impact is certainly increasing).

> I used to take this stance until I learned about systems theory

I will look into this further. From the limited searching I've now done, it seems potentially similar to coalitional game theory wherein the result from cooperative behavior leads to better outcomes from all participants than if they were to individually compete against one-another. Perhaps the major difference is the level of abstraction which may say that a system is made out of many coalitional games to create an even greater outcome without the individual coalitions knowing, but I could be wrong there. If that were the case, it isn't apparent to me why an individual or coalition would participate.
Searching source: https://www.onlinemswprograms.com/social-work/theories/syste...

> In theory, sure, maybe Google workers don't have to care about this stuff. But they do, and there's been lots of internal activism within Google about reducing the company's negative externalities.

This is good news. My original supposition was that we were discussing the consumer perspective (having no insider sway), but I would agree that a far better effect would be gained from internally infiltrating/joining the organization and then pushing directly for the changes one wants to see.

> I reject your dilemma because if taken as-is, there would also be no argument against monopolies or monopsonies as they are caused by free individuals participating voluntarily in private transactions.

Generally, yes - and I generally am against break-up of monopolies unless such an organization is able to physically prevent competition via barriers to entry (typically a consequence of government) or physical exclusivity. Examples are things like transmission over radio frequencies, satellite orbits, electricity companies. These things specifically benefit from regulation because, without it, there is no market solution that can provide the same service.

> Regulation is, though. Plus, laws are how we enforce the Overton window of our collectively agreed-upon moral beliefs - theft is the illegalisation of stealing, after all, and murder is illegal too; I would assume you're OK with these laws.

I am okay with laws against theft and murder specifically because there is harm against a third party whom is not a volunteer in the transaction. I think a more appropriate comparison would be things like gifting (and the resulting gift tax) and duels.

Gifting: It's private property so you should be able to do with it (withholding negative externalities) or give it to whomever you want. The gift tax, as I see it, is a direct tax and unconstitutional, but this is specific to the U.S.

Duels: The outcome of a duel is equivalent to murder, someone dies. The difference is that two (or more) parties voluntarily enter this transaction knowing the potential consequences, and no third party harm exists. I am fully for duels and believe that their existence actually more appropriately shifts the Overton window than regulation, which will always be solved on too general a level. Specific actors are much better able to generate specific solutions for their specific needs.

All this said, I will take the time to look more into systems theory as it does sound like I'm 10 years behind you in the progressivity of my belief system.