[AFAIK]

How do Libertarians address the problem of incremental pollution? When 1 car drives past my house the effect on the quality of the air is negligible but when large volumes of traffic pass by the emissions from these vehicles can cause me immediate and long term harm to the point of causing asthma. What redress would I have in a Libertarian society?

What about if the causes are more abstract and poorly understood or if there is a time lag such as in the case of climate change?

Who would be responsible for the pollution after the original producer dies? The waste from Nuclear power plants remains radioactive for 100,000 years. What responsibility does the owner of the plant have to ensure the waste doesn't poison members of future generations.

Could someone living underneath the hole in the O-Zone layer sue those producing or consuming CFCs on the other side of the planet? Is this a workable solution given the logistics involved?

How would Libertarians strike the balance between excesses and deficiencies? If I lived in a city with no traffic it would feel like a ghost town so we could consider traffic to be a positive externality but if volumes of traffic are high the noise, congestion and air pollution constitute negative externalities. At what point would Libertarians take action and in what form?

[Pants-of-dog]

I would also like an answer to these questions.

[Eran]

The question of pollution is complicated under any form of societal organisation.

Having said that, here are some ideas:
1. The pollution from a single car may be negligible, but the pollution from a busy road isn't. Those living near the road can, therefore, sue (or reach a compromise with) the owner of the road, rather than with individual vehicle operators.

The road owner can then transfer the cost of compensating neighbours from individual vehicles by charging them in proportion to the amount of pollution they emit (or by capping the amount of pollution per vehicle).

2. Libertarians tend to be very sceptical about climate change. My view (shared by many, though definitely not all libertarians) is that it is virtually impossible to model the economic consequences of very gradual and prolonged climate changes in light of desirable and inevitable adaptations. However, it seems fairly clear that current attempts at reducing carbon footprint are highly inefficient.

Recent experience shows that governments are no better at addressing this issue, even assuming that it needs to be addressed.

3. The liabilities of people who have died (or who possess no means to meet them) create unfortunate losses to some people. They can often be mitigated through insurance, charitable efforts and forethought. While a nuclear plant is a viable business, it is clearly responsible for any pollution it emits. The question of potential, long-term pollution is much more complicated (again, under any system).

Generally, libertarians believe that a tort system focused on reasonable protection of property rights would result in the best possible (which isn't to say perfect!) balance. Courts judging on a case-by-case basis would, over time, develop a body of precedent that would be used by members of society to plan their action, and would become, effectively, the law of the land.

Thus, for example, courts may determine under which threshold level of air pollution, no tort case exists (levels too low to be considered material infringement of property rights), which level is completely unacceptable (i.e. where force may be authorised to prohibit any further pollution), and perhaps how intermediate levels of pollution are to be addressed (e.g. by payment of a standard compensation schedule to affected property owners).

In any event you should keep in mind that libertarian jurisprudence isn't theoretical, abstract and detached. Rather, it proceeds from considering actual facts, accounting for reasonable consequences and common practices.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

If I was a true libertarian I'd just go out and dig up the road in front of my house and tell em to move it. I actually like the idea of libertarianism but there's too many people on the planet for it to work now.

[Poelmo]

1. The pollution from a single car may be negligible, but the pollution from a busy road isn't. Those living near the road can, therefore, sue (or reach a compromise with) the owner of the road, rather than with individual vehicle operators.

The road owner can then transfer the cost of compensating neighbours from individual vehicles by charging them in proportion to the amount of pollution they emit (or by capping the amount of pollution per vehicle).

That could work under a minarchist system but it's difficult to see what "sueing" someone would actually entail under anarcho-capitalism. Where does a court derive its power from if not government and if it has power, does that not make it a government? For example a court could reach a verdict that emission has to remain under x ppm, but how would it enforce such a verdict and wouldn't such a verdict make the court just like a government that imposes a law?

2. Libertarians tend to be very sceptical about climate change.

Eventually there's going to be a form of pollution that's unquestionably highly damaging (such as dumping heavy metals).

Generally, libertarians believe that a tort system focused on reasonable protection of property rights would result in the best possible (which isn't to say perfect!) balance. Courts judging on a case-by-case basis would, over time, develop a body of precedent that would be used by members of society to plan their action, and would become, effectively, the law of the land.

Then you're back at government, a government of unelected judges. It'll be a sloppy government because courts will be under pressure to deliver a timely and not-too-costly verdict. The first court that has to reach a verdict on emission is under pressure to come up with a x ppm limit within months and without it bankrupting the parties in the court case, after that the x ppm limit will be the law of the land forever with no way to change it when new technology or science emerge.

[Eran]

That could work under a minarchist system but it's difficult to see what "sueing" someone would actually entail under anarcho-capitalism. Where does a court derive its power from if not government and if it has power, does that not make it a government? For example a court could reach a verdict that emission has to remain under x ppm, but how would it enforce such a verdict and wouldn't such a verdict make the court just like a government that imposes a law?

The question of enforcement of property rights under (capitalist) anarchism is distinct from the question of what such property rights entail based on libertarian philosophy (the topic of this discussion).

However, I never turn down an opportunity to discuss the former, so here goes.

Courts in a libertarian society derive their authority from precisely the same source as courts under a democracy - from the broad public acceptance of their legitimacy. After all, the USSC has no means of enforcing its decisions. That enforcement is carried out by other organs of government, sometimes against the opinion and interest of their heads. Why is that? Because public opinion would view very dimly any President (not to mention lower officials) who disregarded such decisions.

Precisely the same would hold under a libertarian anarchy. Courts are consulted precisely because they enjoy broad legitimacy. Consequently, action pursuing the decision of such courts enjoys broad recognition as legitimate. In practice, dedicated organisations (whether for-profit or not) would arise specialising in enforcing such decisions.

If a court issues an opinion whereby the use of (reasonable, targeted) force is appropriate for terminating pollution over a certain level, or for extracting restitution for the harm done by prior pollution, such enforcement organisations would rely on that opinion and act accordingly.

Such a court wouldn't thus become government for several reasons:

1. The court would have no authority or legitimacy to initiate force, something governments invariably claim. Strictly speaking, the court merely issues an opinion. The opinion stipulates that certain use of force isn't, in view of the entire circumstances, an initiation of force (i.e. aggression), but is rather a responsive, defensive application of force.

2. The court enjoys no monopoly. It is typically chosen by agreement of both sides to a dispute.

Eventually there's going to be a form of pollution that's unquestionably highly damaging (such as dumping heavy metals).

When pollution is highly damaging, its effects tend to be evident in the relatively-short term. Climate change is problematic, in large part, because its purported damages are only going to unfold over decades or centuries.

Recent experience shows that governments are no better at addressing this issue, even assuming that it needs to be addressed.

I have every hope that a property-rights based system would prove significantly more effective. In the current system, government enforcement agents are highly susceptible to influence and corruption, whether personally or institutionally.

Under the libertarian alternative, property owners, those actually affected by and most motivated to fight pollution, are empowered to seek compensation or cessation of pollution directly. They don't need to wait for government officials to act, try and raise popular awareness, or try their lobbying powers against those of established industries.

Then you're back at government, a government of unelected judges.

This may be a semantic issue, but I view "government" as being an organisation successfully claiming a monopoly over the use of force in a given geographic area.

I don't see how a system of courts, open to competition, and restricting themselves to issuing opinions regarding which uses of force are legitimate (i.e. defensive) can be viewed as "government".

Such system of courts, together with organisations dedicated to enforcing their opinions, do form a system of governance. Such system, in one way or another, is a requisite part of any orderly human society, including all forms of anarchy.

[Poelmo]

@Eran

You do realize competing courts and a justice system where both parties have to agree to the particular court doesn't work in practice? You could legally get away with anything as long as you don't agree to the same court as the sueing party (I'm looking forward to the PR campaigns of big businesses and rich people that accuse a bunch of courts of being biased towards agaisnt them, and activist groups accusing other courts of the opposite and in the end there will only be opinion so it becomes acceptable to refuse courts), everything would basically be mob justice: if clients will not financially punish you voluntarily for what you've done there will be no consequences for you (so if you live in a racist town you can murder a black man with no consequences). And you'll get fractured laws where each individual case can have a different outcome, meaning that only rich people, or large groups of people will bother with sueing anyone, that's far less efficient than just having one authority establish an emission limit for all. Oh, I almost forgot: if the courts are in competition they'll have a profit motive and that will definitely affect their verdicts and the kind of cases they'll be willing to accept. More blatantly, buying judges will be the most profitable business activity in the world.

[Eran]

That's why I wrote that it is typically chosen by both sides.

When one side is refusing to cooperate, an appeal to a court by only one party must clearly be possible.

In such cases, the risk of mistake is greater, and with it the cost of enforcement. Since the losing side (presumably the side not cooperating) is liable to such costs, it "pays" for people to cooperate (just as it pays people today to "cooperate" with government courts by presenting a defence), hence the likelihood of such cooperation.

everything would basically be mob justice: if clients will not financially punish you voluntarily for what you've done there will be no consequences for you

No more so than today. What is a democracy if not organised mob justice? "If voters don't punish you in the voting booth, there would be no consequences for you (a politician)". In fact, clients can just as easily resort to the aid of large, reputable, experienced and well-resourced firm to look after their interests. There is no "David and Goliath" problem.

You shouldn't underestimate the critical significance of public sentiments. It is such sentiment that makes the difference between stable, successful constitutional democracies, and shams presenting the mere appearance of democracy (while the very need to even present such an appearance is an indication of the importance of public perception).

In a stable libertarian anarchy, the prohibition on aggression is the unwritten constitution (in its broad sense) of society. Members of society can no more be seen to violate it than can powerful (politically or financially) people violate the constitution of current societies.

And you'll get fractured laws where each individual case can have a different outcome, meaning that only rich people, or large groups of people will bother with sueing anyone, that's far less efficient than just having one authority establish an emission limit for all.

Economic logic suggests that you will get convergence rather than fractured laws. In fact, the current system results in highly uncertain, constantly changing, arbitrarily-enacted and even more arbitrarily-enforced laws (of all types, including pollution).

Common Law institutions resulted in stable, rational, predictable legal system for centuries without the need for centralized legislation.

if the courts are in competition they'll have a profit motive and that will definitely affect their verdicts and the kind of cases they'll be willing to accept. More blatantly, buying judges will be the most profitable business activity in the world.

Buying judges will be a complete and total waste of money. Here is why. As soon as a judge is known to be "for sale", his opinions become worthless, both because they will easily be over-turned by appeal to a different court, and because no sane person would agree to abide by their judgement.

Democracies, on the other hand, have a rich history of corrupt justice. It is much easier (and more profitable) to corrupt a judge when your opposing party has no choice but to argue in front of that judge.

[AFAIK]

1. The pollution from a single car may be negligible, but the pollution from a busy road isn't. Those living near the road can, therefore, sue (or reach a compromise with) the owner of the road, rather than with individual vehicle operators.

The road owner can then transfer the cost of compensating neighbours from individual vehicles by charging them in proportion to the amount of pollution they emit (or by capping the amount of pollution per vehicle).

What about water pollution in a river or ocean? I assume the river belongs to the commons.

Some roads would be owned collectively by say local residents and businesses. Others would belong to the commons as they are already being used in State level societies and once anarchy is enacted it would violate NAP to prevent people from continuing to use them.

[Poelmo]

That's why I wrote that it is typically chosen by both sides.

When one side is refusing to cooperate, an appeal to a court by only one party must clearly be possible.

Enforcement of such a one sided ruling would be initiation of government force in all but name. Worse, it could lead to contradictions when the two parties appeal to different courts. A frequently recurring theme in critiques of anarcho-capitalism is that it will always revert to unelected government, this conversation once again reaffirms that theory.

[Eran]

What about water pollution in a river or ocean? I assume the river belongs to the commons.

Most likely - yes. It is hard to see how anything bigger than a small stream could be entirely homesteaded.

Equivalently, many people could be said to have use-rights (easements) over the use and enjoyment of the river, including the right to enjoy it in a pollution-free state.

Once again, how much pollution is acceptable would depend on circumstances and norms, on pattern use and priority of access, etc.

Some roads would be owned collectively by say local residents and businesses. Others would belong to the commons as they are already being used in State level societies and once anarchy is enacted it would violate NAP to prevent people from continuing to use them.

If you rely on prior use-pattern to determine rights to continue and use a previously-public road (which is reasonable, imo), surely the same precedent can be used to prohibit individual car pollution at levels that exceed prior use-patterns (those that existed under government regulation).

More likely, though, would be a gradual transition to libertarianism which would see government roads privatised while still under government auspices.

Enforcement of such a one sided ruling would be initiation of government force in all but name.

Not at all. The distinction I drew above are substantive, not semantic.

The most important substantive difference is whether force is used defensively or aggressively.

Governments, by their very nature, use force aggressively. Even the most minimal of governments, a Randian voluntarily-funded (non-taxing) minarchy would resort to aggressive force to enforce its monopoly over dispute resolution, right protection and use of (otherwise defensive) force.

The society I am describing is presumptively one in which the general public consensus is that force may only be used defensively, pursuant the NAP. The only courts that would be considered reputable and reliable would be the ones that adhere to that principle. The opinion of such courts would, consequently, only authorise the use of force when and to the degree that such use of force is defensive, rather than aggressive.

Enforcement agencies which limit their own use of force to following the opinions of such courts would never use force aggressively. In that critical, substantive sense, they would be different from any government.

So you see, the system I am describing could be called "governance", and even considered government by name, but by name only. Substantively, it isn't.

Worse, it could lead to contradictions when the two parties appeal to different courts.

Not a problem. Any such dispute would quickly reach two well-established, reputable, responsible firms (either courts or enforcement agencies). Such firms, acting in their self-interest, recognising the very high cost, both monetary and, even more so, reputationally, of armed confrontation, would make every effort to resolve their differences peacefully, probably by appealing to a third, mutually-acceptable court.

Compare the scenario to one which starts in a dispute between citizens of two different countries, say US and Canada. Each appeals to a court in their own country, and the courts reach opposite conclusions. Would you then expect a war to break out between the US and Canada?

Of course not. Even though the leaders of the two countries do not personally pay for the cost of such wars (unlike ultimate decision-makers in private enforcement agencies). Even though contemporary public opinion is much more tolerant of the aggressive use of force by governments than would be the public in a libertarian anarchy.

So if the US and Canada are highly unlikely to resort to war following a legal dispute between two of their citizens, what makes you think two competing enforcement agencies in a libertarian anarchy would?

A frequently recurring theme in critiques of anarcho-capitalism is that it will always revert to unelected government, this conversation once again reaffirms that theory.

Any conversation will reaffirm your views if you are already decided and not open to arguments.

[Poelmo]

Not at all. The distinction I drew above are substantive, not semantic.

The most important substantive difference is whether force is used defensively or aggressively.

Governments, by their very nature, use force aggressively. Even the most minimal of governments, a Randian voluntarily-funded (non-taxing) minarchy would resort to aggressive force to enforce its monopoly over dispute resolution, right protection and use of (otherwise defensive) force.

You making up some excuse for force still doesn't change the fact that it's force. Governments also claim they only use defensive force, but that's in the eye of the beholder, just as it is in this case. If one party appeals to a court without the other party recognizing this court and this court rules in favor of the appealing party and orders the use of force this violates the NAP because one party didn't agree to the mediation (it makes sense the appealing party chooses a court that's biased towards them). Now you can choose to invent words for such an action and artificially distinguish it from government but then you'd be fooling yourself. I don't think there's any wriggling out of that one.

Enforcement agencies which limit their own use of force to following the opinions of such courts would never use force aggressively. In that critical, substantive sense, they would be different from any government.

They would be using force aggressively if the court was only recognized by one of the parties.

Not a problem. Any such dispute would quickly reach two well-established, reputable, responsible firms (either courts or enforcement agencies). Such firms, acting in their self-interest, recognising the very high cost, both monetary and, even more so, reputationally, of armed confrontation, would make every effort to resolve their differences peacefully, probably by appealing to a third, mutually-acceptable court.

The two courts could do that, but that would essentially nullify their verdicts, only the verdict of the third court would remain.

[Eran]

You making up some excuse for force still doesn't change the fact that it's force.

So what? I am not a pacifist. I do not, and never represented myself as opposing the use of force categorically.

Force is still force, but it may or may not be moral or just, depending on whether it is aggressive (i.e. initiated) or defensive.

Governments also claim they only use defensive force, but that's in the eye of the beholder, just as it is in this case.

No. There are objective facts, and while we rely on the judgement of people to determine them, the standard isn't infinitely flexible.

There may be honest differences of opinion in borderline cases, but governments, by virtue of being governments, necessarily and routinely engage in aggressive force. Taxation and prosecution of victimless crimes are only the most obvious examples.

If one party appeals to a court without the other party recognizing this court and this court rules in favor of the appealing party and orders the use of force this violates the NAP because one party didn't agree to the mediation

I don't think you understand the NAP, if that is what you think.

Whether the second party recognises the court or not is of no consequence whatsoever as far as the NAP is concerned. If I violated the NAP by committing aggression against you, you can justifiably use force to undo the effects of that aggression, and in so doing be perfectly consistent with the NAP. Whether I cooperate with the process of determining, in a way that is broadly considered reliable, the existence and extent of NAP violation committed by me is completely beside the point.

Now you can choose to invent words for such an action and artificially distinguish it from government but then you'd be fooling yourself.

Again, this is nothing to do with "words". I think voluntary sex is legitimate, while rape isn't. The distinction between the two isn't down to the words I used ("statutory rape" is still legitimate, even though the word "rape" has been used to describe a consensual relation between a 19 and a 15 year old) but because of the essence of the action.

They would be using force aggressively if the court was only recognized by one of the parties.

If you stole my TV, and I used force to recover it from you, that force is defensive, not aggressive. Whether you recognised the court that legitimised my action or not is completely irrelevant.

The two courts could do that, but that would essentially nullify their verdicts, only the verdict of the third court would remain.

Sure. That's how appeals work.

[Poelmo]

I don't think you understand the NAP, if that is what you think.

Whether the second party recognises the court or not is of no consequence whatsoever as far as the NAP is concerned. If I violated the NAP by committing aggression against you, you can justifiably use force to undo the effects of that aggression, and in so doing be perfectly consistent with the NAP. Whether I cooperate with the process of determining, in a way that is broadly considered reliable, the existence and extent of NAP violation committed by me is completely beside the point.

I understand that aspect of the NAP: yes, if I hurt you the NAP gives you the right to compensation, whether I like it or not. The problem lies in establishing whether I hurt you in the first place. For that you need an arbitrator that's recognized by both parties because perfect arbitrators don't exist and in the absence of government there's no court with unquestionable authority. To avoid a show trial I have to have faith in the objectivity of the court that arbitrates our dispute. If public opinion forces a particular court on me because they trust the court (or they just like the most likely verdict this court will issue) this is no different from an elected government forcing me to do this. For example if I was some ruthless libertarian billionaire living in a highrise surrounded by slums one of the people from the slums could sue me for some triviality (like the shadow of my highrise depriving the slums of sunlight) and suggest a leftist court for arbitration, a court that is overwhelmingly favored by the local population, but one that I, the billionaire, cannot agree to because I know the court favors the people from the slums and would like nothing better than to make me pay huge damages to the people from the slums (like a government taxing the rich to take care of the poor).

If you stole my TV, and I used force to recover it from you, that force is defensive, not aggressive. Whether you recognised the court that legitimised my action or not is completely irrelevant.

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I stole your tv and then it really does matter which court you're appealing to (they decide what's reasonable doubt) because there is no perfect court on this Earth and there never will be one either.

[Eran]

For that you need an arbitrator that's recognized by both parties because perfect arbitrators don't exist and in the absence of government there's no court with unquestionable authority.

It is true that there are no perfect arbitrators. However, there may well be courts with sufficiently-broadly-accepted authority.

For example if I was some ruthless libertarian billionaire living in a highrise surrounded by slums one of the people from the slums could sue me for some triviality (like the shadow of my highrise depriving the slums of sunlight) and suggest a leftist court for arbitration, a court that is overwhelmingly favored by the local population, but one that I, the billionaire, cannot agree to because I know the court favors the people from the slums and would like nothing better than to make me pay huge damages to the people from the slums (like a government taxing the rich to take care of the poor).

By the same token, if you are a ruthless statist billionaire living in a highrise surrounded by slums, a majority of slum dwellers could elect a city council that would impose an outrageous property tax on you, or even set a death penalty for casting shadows.

Clearly, you would appeal to your state court and, if necessary, the USSC.

The same options are open to you in an an-cap.


Let me take a step back and clarify. For an an-cap to be a peaceful a stable society, the exact same precondition is required as for any other society, namely that there is very broad public consensus over what constitutes legitimate means for settling disputes.

In the US today you will find very divergent ideological views, from red-neck neo-con fundamentalists to bleeding-heart liberal socialist atheists.

They cannot agree on whether abortion should be legal or not. They cannot agree on whether the US Constitution implies abortions should be always legal, never legal, or sometimes legal.

But they generally (with very few exceptions) do agree that rulings of the USSC are legitimately binding, even when they don't like those rulings.


A similar convergence must and will take place in an an-cap society. There won't be a single body like the USSC, but rather a small group of highly reputable super-arbitrators, together with a larger number of normal arbitrators, all of whose legitimacy is ever conditional on the public perception that they are ruling in accordance with the fundamental law of the land, the NAP.

Any other organisation (e.g. enforcement agencies) would similarly be expected, by broadly-shared public opinion, to comply with the NAP as "interpreted" by those arbitrators.

This is comparable to broad expectation in today's America that all agencies, whether public (e.g. police forces) or private will comply with the US Constitution as interpreted, ultimately, by the USSC.

Further, certain norms would be expected with respect to the criminal justice process, namely that responsible parties (i.e. anybody not considered an outright outlaw) would reasonably cooperate with the process. It is OK to object to a particular arbitrator, as long as you are reasonable about the choice of another.

Jurisdictional disputes (very common in today's society) may well arise, when two courts reach contradictory conclusions in a particular case. But just as in today's society, courts have a way of avoiding such disputes, with rules evolving to resolve them.

In Israel, for example, two separate sets of courts have jurisdictional over family matters - "civil" family courts and Rabbinical courts. Over time, the legal rule that evolved is "first to file" whereby in whichever court a claim was first filed has jurisdiction, which the other court respects.

In today's globalized economy there are countless cross-border disputes, just as there are countless cross-state disputes within the US. All of them are resolved peacefully every day.


So while the preferred scenario is indeed one in which both sides to a dispute reach an agreement as to the arbitrator to resolve their differences, the system cannot be crippled by one side refusing to cooperate.

Compare to the current criminal justice system. It is better if the defendant cooperates with his lawyer in his own defence. However, a defendant which refuses to speak at all is still going to be sentenced if found guilty.

If public opinion forces a particular court on me because they trust the court (or they just like the most likely verdict this court will issue) this is no different from an elected government forcing me to do this.

You are focusing on the procedural rather than the substantive aspects of the action.

You can reasonably argue that such process is akin to government justice in that it is applied onto you against your will.

But substantively, the key difference is that while government action is routinely aggressive, the system here described comes as close as humanly possible (i.e. errors are always possible) to avoiding any aggressive action. Whether you agree with that or not.

So the system might look to you like government in that one respect, but in fact it isn't because force would only be authorised when it is deemed defensive.

To avoid a show trial I have to have faith in the objectivity of the court that arbitrates our dispute.

No. But society at large needs to have that faith. If you are being unreasonable and reject a court that society finds acceptable, you are on your own. Often literally.

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I stole your tv and then it really does matter which court you're appealing to (they decide what's reasonable doubt) because there is no perfect court on this Earth and there never will be one either.

I'm not sure "beyond reasonable doubt" is the appropriate standard. In civil cases today, for example, the standard is "preponderance of evidence".

[Someone5]

The question of pollution is complicated under any form of societal organisation.

Having said that, here are some ideas:
1. The pollution from a single car may be negligible, but the pollution from a busy road isn't. Those living near the road can, therefore, sue (or reach a compromise with) the owner of the road, rather than with individual vehicle operators.

The road owner can then transfer the cost of compensating neighbours from individual vehicles by charging them in proportion to the amount of pollution they emit (or by capping the amount of pollution per vehicle).

2. Libertarians tend to be very sceptical about climate change. My view (shared by many, though definitely not all libertarians) is that it is virtually impossible to model the economic consequences of very gradual and prolonged climate changes in light of desirable and inevitable adaptations. However, it seems fairly clear that current attempts at reducing carbon footprint are highly inefficient.

Recent experience shows that governments are no better at addressing this issue, even assuming that it needs to be addressed.

3. The liabilities of people who have died (or who possess no means to meet them) create unfortunate losses to some people. They can often be mitigated through insurance, charitable efforts and forethought. While a nuclear plant is a viable business, it is clearly responsible for any pollution it emits. The question of potential, long-term pollution is much more complicated (again, under any system).

Generally, libertarians believe that a tort system focused on reasonable protection of property rights would result in the best possible (which isn't to say perfect!) balance. Courts judging on a case-by-case basis would, over time, develop a body of precedent that would be used by members of society to plan their action, and would become, effectively, the law of the land.

Thus, for example, courts may determine under which threshold level of air pollution, no tort case exists (levels too low to be considered material infringement of property rights), which level is completely unacceptable (i.e. where force may be authorised to prohibit any further pollution), and perhaps how intermediate levels of pollution are to be addressed (e.g. by payment of a standard compensation schedule to affected property owners).

In any event you should keep in mind that libertarian jurisprudence isn't theoretical, abstract and detached. Rather, it proceeds from considering actual facts, accounting for reasonable consequences and common practices.

Or the road operator can just use his freedom to tell everyone else to fuck off, and if they don't like it they can be free not to use the [only] road leading to their house.

[Eran]

No, you are not "free" to emit pollution onto other people's property.

You can be held responsible, and (proportionate) force may be used against you to enforce the rule.

[Someone5]

No, you are not "free" to emit pollution onto other people's property.

Okay, then I'll charge a million dollars to anyone driving past my property because of their pollution. Either way it can be as absurd as a person wants to be.

Of course, this is using the highly problematic an-cap legal system, so anyone I so charge can just tell me to go to hell because there's not a thing I could do to force them to pay.

[AFAIK]

If you rely on prior use-pattern to determine rights to continue and use a previously-public road (which is reasonable, imo), surely the same precedent can be used to prohibit individual car pollution at levels that exceed prior use-patterns (those that existed under government regulation).

What if govt. allowed pollution at a harmful level because reducing pollution would have harmed the economy? The congestion charge in London reduced pollution but also reduced commerce and employment (especially amongst retailers). The state/ govt. currently makes lots of compromises that would be considered injustices under an-cap.

[Eran]

Okay, then I'll charge a million dollars to anyone driving past my property because of their pollution. Either way it can be as absurd as a person wants to be.

That depends on the level of pollution. If it is deemed below a certain threshold, you may charge nothing - it doesn't materially detract from your ability to peacefully enjoy your property.

Why do people think that reliance on the NAP means setting aside common sense and reason?

Compare the NAP to the US Constitution. While the articles of the Bill of Rights have very simple, clear, unambiguous reading, there is a long legal tradition of judges using common sense to reconcile them with the practical problems of living in society.

I am not suggesting anything radically different. The NAP is the "constitution" of the society I am advocating, but like any constitution, it voices broad legal principles that need to be interpreted and applied sensibly to everyday situations.

What if govt. allowed pollution at a harmful level because reducing pollution would have harmed the economy? The congestion charge in London reduced pollution but also reduced commerce and employment (especially amongst retailers). The state/ govt. currently makes lots of compromises that would be considered injustices under an-cap.

That is indeed a common practice by governments. As you noted, it would be considered an injustice, but also economically inefficient.

Government practice is to impose a cost on owners of polluted property for the benefit of polluters, typically without any attempt to assess that cost (since property owners have no choice). With such procedure, there is no way to ensure or even expect that the costs imposed would be less than the benefit to society.