The fact it’s hard to logically prove the benefit, and the fact that the transaction is not consensual, is not some kind of strange coincidence. It is hard to prove the beneficial value *because* the transaction is not consensual. How could one prove a net benefit? The problem is not that it’s some kind of trick question, the problem is that one party is using force or threats to violate the other person’s ownership of self or property, and is destroying human, economic and environmental values in the process.

“I proposed a policy to limit consumption of a renewable resource to a sustainable rate. This completely debunks your assertion that "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo".

No it doesn’t, because it doesn’t take account of the *use of resources needed to substitute for the benefits foregone.* If what you were saying was right, we could abolish the problem of natural scarcity, simply by vesting power in government to produce everything. It’s false.

“Leadership on this scale is not "miraculous": it's happened many times before, to bring us hospitals, fire stations, schools and weekends.”

You still haven’t proved that there is a net benefit compared to if the same things were paid for voluntarily. You’re simply assuming that the use of compulsion miraculously creates positive value. But when I ask you to prove it, you can’t.

“None of these is perfect, sure, but they contribute to the common good.”

If you spend a billion dollars to get a million dollars worth of benefit, the benefit we do buy still ‘contributes to the common good’. It’s just that it wastes resources, and that is not better for the environment.

Something constructive we can do? The whole point is, no-one has proved that coercive action actually produces net benefits. Just to stop doing things that are actively wasteful is already a constructive suggestion.

[While doing something is actively destructive]
“To do nothing is also a good remedy.”
Hippocrates