I think it's easy to view government, albeit inadvertently, as cost-free. I think we'd find that every governmental regulatory policy only has as much capital and effectiveness as what constituents are willing to pay. If this is true, then it means that just letting markets run it would be at least as effective. Except they're far more effective for all the reasons that reduce costs and allocate capital more efficiently.

Saving the rhino through government may cost 100bn, but doing it through markets would be a fraction of that. Markets allow people to express their morals more effectively. People say "Congress should do this!" Congress says "we can do it for such n such cost". People respond "no!" If people were to respond "yes", doesn't that necessarily mean they would be willing to pay that cost in a market in the first place?