Okay, seriously, my question:

If I setup a shooting range on my property and your property is downrange and I hit a window, I'm responsible and owe damages. You can't stop me from setting up a shooting range on my property, but my actions affected you and you can prove it.

If I setup a coal burning powerplant on my property, you cannot stop me nor can you pass any laws preventing it. The smoke from the burning coal may drift high over your property, but the mercury from that smoke can pollute your rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. The damage caused can be widespread and affect many people in many countries: Food supplies can be contaminated, pollution can destroy crops, ocean waters and the life in them thousands of miles away can be impacted. The output causes damage both in terms of property and in terms of human life.

Yet, it is not your land and you have no ownership of it. I am not trespassing on your land. The land and power plant belong to me, not to you. I can do with them as I please. Proof of indirect damage is difficult and you cannot force me to test the plant emissions. How does the theory of libertarian land ownership handle this?

So reckless endangerment is assault.

Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?

There are no "versions" of libertarianism; there is only libertarianism. ALL libertarianism is all based on the 3 things I mentioned, and is exactly as I have stated. It's consistent and it makes sense.

Pollution is trespassing, and endangerment of property and people. It is a crime and everyone who does it should be held criminally and financially liable for any damages that can be measurably and directly related to what is done. Laws can be made to shut down places that endanger others or infringe upon their rights. If someone sets up a firing range, they are endangering you if they have not taken steps to ensure that there isn't a single bullet that leaves their property and enters onto yours or even goes in your general direction.

If you can prove a broken window happened, you can also prove you were endangered, and can legitimately shut down the range, collect damages including punative damages.

If you can't prove damages, you're not entitled to anything.

Ah, thank you for clearing this up. Does this mean that environmental regulations do not have to be in conflict with these ideals?

It means the government has no authority to make regulations on business. But people do have the right to take you to court even without them, if they can prove that you've harmed them, endangered them, or damaged their property.

Okay, so you polluted my river, and I take you to court. The judge decides you are criminally liable for my kid's cancer and my kidney failure.

Does the judge just get to decide how much it's worth? Is it straight-up medical bills and no punitive damages, since that's all that's "measurable?" What if a different judge thinks it's worth more? Perhaps it's okay if the government issued some guidelines as to how much various forms of endangerment are worth, with regards to both financial damages and criminal sentencing?

Guidelines... what's another word for legally-binding guidelines? Oh yeah, regulations on business.

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

I believe juries recommend punative damages, but judges have the final say. It would be best if each situation were judged on a case-by-case basis. Someone whose lawn dies due to pollution obviously has less damages than someone whose children die.

Whether or not one judge would give more than another is irrelevant. Judges are given discretion and they should retain it. There should be no guidelines.

Also, regulations are not guidelines. They are laws. Guidelines are merely suggestions. The U.S. government is not given any authority to regulate business. It can regulate interstate commerce (buying and selling over state lines) but not what products a business may sell, where they can do business within a state, how many products they may manufacture, what safety features they must or must not include, etc.

OK. I understand that.

How does Libertarianism feel about limitations on the use of a property? For example, if a wealthy individual were able to buy a historic old building that is a national treasure, but in private hands, like Mount Vernon, should they be allowed to bulldoze it to put up a monument to Pauly Shore? Or can a libertarian government designate a building as "historic" or "protected" and limit what you can do with it?

It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.

Yes, if someone were to purchase Mount Vernon and wanted to bulldoze it to the ground to put up a Pauly Shore monument, they should be allowed to do so. Nobody else has any say in what they do with their own property...even when it's stupid.

What if I cannot afford to fight you in court? Very often it's almost impossible for individuals to launch a suit because a large business has the money to tie up procedings and outlast you. You would have to ban private legal representation and channel everything through the government, good luck.

If you can't fight in court on a legitimate case, you aren't trying very hard. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who would work on contingency or even pro-bono in a pollution case that killed kids or some other such thing.