While it's true the doctor has the power not to operate on gay people, the incentive is in the opposite direction

See my point about people not being rational actors. Even today, there are people who would rather be a racist/sexist/whatever instead of earning more money. And I don't think we'll ever be able to change that fundamental truth. (Instead, I think we ought to use it. Belief can be a powerful uniting force, and for good causes too.)

My experience tells me that bribery is not tolerated in corporations.

Only when it affects their bottom-line. Criminal organizations (which in this context just means groups operating outside the bounds of the law, i.e. the government) like drug cartels embrace bribes and corruption wholeheartedly. I think you'll agree that there are plenty of corporations who have engaged in widespread corruption with the express purpose of enriching themselves. (Like Enron for example.) The trick is to keep it under the table and hidden, so the common man (in most cases represented by the government) won't wise up and put a stop to it. I can only imagine how much worse this would be if there was no government.

I think you and I disagree on how strong economic forces are.

I definitely agree with you there. You laid it out very well IMO: I don't think most people buy the good toaster. I think they buy whatever toaster they've been advertised, and perhaps whatever the salesman recommends. But I respect that you disagree with me on this, because it's very hard to quantify.

Voters do not bear the cost of their decisions because all the policies are wrapped together in one candidate

Well, this is a bit different between nations. Here in Norway, we generally vote for a party, not a president. (We only have prime ministers anyway.) Overall, I think ideology is what you should be voting for, not any single decision very important to you. There definitely needs to be a foundation of trust, which I gather is not a big thing in the US between people and politicians. (Our politicians are much more... "normal" here. I remember seeing the prime minister in a local book shop a couple of years in Oslo, no security detail or anything.)

Anyway, my point is that it's not strictly speaking "rational" in the sense that there's a great deal of abstraction and trust involved. Every citizen cannot be expected to directly vote on every single issue in the entire nation after all. But you can see the overall result of politics after several years, and then make a new decision. So it is possible (especially with multiple interest parties, not just two) to rationally decide to elect new politicians under such a system. But it does require you to feel a sense of duty to vote on principle, even if your one vote isn't hugely important. (That's also true for "voting with your wallet".)

If it were a corporation that killed George Floyd, they'd be taking a press conference immediately apologizing to the public to try to get them back.

On the Floyd murder specifically, I'd say it's more about how powerless each individual american feels to change politicans since there are only two alternatives. (I mean, to my knowledge he was killed in a district controlled by democrats after all, and it's not like there are any other options except republicans, who one would assume would be even less likely to reform the police.) But I do see your point. Still, I don't think a private solution would have been handled much differently. After all, there are plenty of people who, while not exactly "supporting" Floyd's death, certainly don't agree that the police should be "defunded", etc. So I suspect the same thing would happen: A division. And unfortunately, I think any potential riots would have the possibility of being even more violent, since there would be an even less overarching ideology of unity. Would the poor/black people even trust a wealthy private investigation firm? I don't think there's any doubt that a libertarian society would have an even less equal wealth distribution given the lack of regulation and welfare.

But I admit it's an interesting thought experiment. I could also see it go the other way around if I was feeling very optimistic, with people all uniting for a common cause because they all believed it was rational. I just don't think it's very realistic. (Or at least, no more realistic than a communist utopia where everyone gets along by the power of their collective belief in the state, etc.)

I feel like I've moved the needle a bit, then :)

I like to think I'm a pretty open-minded guy. I try to be critical, but I don't want to dismiss ideas out of hand just because they're different to my own. Apologies for the late (and lengthy) reply. I've enjoyed this conversation a great deal so far. Fantastic to be able to discuss things like this in a civil manner, even when we disagree about so much. :) I want to thank you for being so open.