>>24
Abortion: You fail to see my point. Where do you draw the line as to whether a fetus is sentient or not? If a fetus can survive outside the womb is it ok to end it's life? etc..
GDP and crime: It is unfair for one country to have to lower it's living standards to deal with another country's inability to prevent overpopulation and crime.
Environment: Environments have tourism value.
International property: Everyone owns it. Due to it's fluid nature the atmosphere can only be everyone's property, so everyone in the entire world must pay for it's use and decide it's composition.
Pollution: Pollution is damage to other people's property. For instance you can dump all your trash in the back yard instead of sorting and composting, but if the stank and rats start to affect your neighbours you are damaging their property and you will have to pay for it or work off your debt to them in prison. Property laws have been degraded over time, but they will be become a lot more touchy under libertarianism and will serve to prosecute polluters. Commitment devices or any other pointless bureaucracy is needed.
Regulations: Regulation is a standard part of law enforcement. The improvement libertarians would make is to ensure businesses foot the bill for the law enforcement needed to police them. This means they have an incentive to prove they are law abiding and stay that way, one slip up and they have to pay substantially more tax for a few more years along with their legal costs. This way evil corporations won't even touch immoral activities with a 180 foot pole.
Social problems: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a "supernational" government to prevent self-destructive behaviour. Libertarianism would greatly reduce social problems by forcing people to be responsible. If every time you fall the government catches you you would never develop a sense of balance.
>>25
A cartel forms.
Nobody plays an eternal ballgame at 100% effort.
One company manager quickly discovers his branch can gain a little extra profit by reducing the cost or increasing the quality or his services.
The shareholders demand a split
The corporate cartel faces losing a significant proportion of the value of their company unless they comply.*
fix'd
>>26
The first thing any scientist does is look for facts or problems in reasonning. Since you have provided none I will reply to someone else.
>>27
They are not ignorant of it. They expressly state a deeper understanding of this dilemma which for some reason you cannot reach. Consider this. In the prestigious institution of walmart, 99 law abiding citizens and a hooligan all purchase a 6pack of beer. The law abiding citizens consume the beers over the period of a week whilst the hooligan consumes them all within an hour, he goes on a drunken rampage vandalising property before being picked up by the police, sent to the courts and spending a week in jail at great expense. The expense just happens to be the amount of extra tax levied from the 100 customers that day.
Did that tax stop the hooligan?
Who paid for the damage?
>>28
See
>>30.