There is a third option between letting people do things which impose a cost on everyone else (e.g. like pollution), and forcing everybody to do the same thing. You can make people who want to do those things pay at least some of those costs.
If you want to drive a 12 MPG Maybach, go ahead, but you then pay a mileage excise tax that goes to offset the costs. It's the same hedonic calculus -- how much do I want to pay for the performance? But with more realistic cost numbers.
What do you do with those taxes? Well you can offset some of the costs of the wars we fight to secure access to Middle Eastern oil -- about 2.5 trillion dollars in the last decades or so. You don't think we'd have fought the wars if there wasn't oil there, do you? Or if oil demand were much lower, for that matter.
Or you could put the money into energy efficiency and pollution control research.
But one of the best ways to use the money is to simply give it back to people who make choices that lower public costs,e.g. people who choose to drive, say, a Chevy Malibu sedan (46 MPG city) owner would get a mileage rebate.
But isn't this meddling with peoples' choice of cars. Yes! We're encouraging people to make choices that cost us less. But we're still giving them a choice. That's more than you get under a system where you're forced to pay the consequences of other peoples' selfish choices.