A Question I got via PM

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for your solution of suing them all: That doesn't work because you cannot prove which, if any of the polluters is responsible for the pollutants in your yard. You simply cannot prove which Chinese guy's car produced the NO2 that is in your backyard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't need to. See, e.g., the DES market share tort liability cases (Hymowitz vs. Lilly, 73 NY2d 487).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those cases are contrary to the libertarian norms of not being liable until proven beyond a reasonable doubt and strict causality.

"But the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly used in criminal cases: Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging people's actions, so that such a standard as "beyond a scintilla of doubt" would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain small enough that any "reasonable man" will be convinced of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle.
...
What the plaintiff must prove, then, beyond a reasonable doubt is a strict causal connection between the defendant and his aggression against the plaintiff. He must prove, in short, that A actually "caused" an invasion of the person or property of B."

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If the market is going to bend the rules of libertarian justice anyway, why not just go all the way and allow the even more effective solution of preemptive regulation?