I haven't read it in detail, but here's the gist from Mises Institute articles that touch on air pollution [1]: > In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but

I haven't read it in detail, but here's the gist from Mises Institute articles that touch on air pollution [1]: > In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but one does have a right to not have his air invaded by pollutants generated by an aggressor. Also see this quote [2]: > There is, first of all, this stark empirical fact: Government ownership, even socialism, has proved to be no solution to the problem of pollution. Even the most starry-eyed proponents of government planning concede that the poisoning of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union is a monument to heedless industrial pollution of a valuable natural resource. But there is far more to the problem than that. Note, for example, the two crucial areas in which pollution has become an important problem: the air and the waterways, particularly the rivers. But these are precisely two of the vital areas in society in which private property has not been permitted to function. Agree or disagree, this is the typical libertarian response to externalities as far as I know. There's probably more to it w.r.t to public goods as "naturally given", and when something turns into private property, if you are look further into the literature. 1: https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution#11 https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollut... 2: https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution EDIT: I'm assuming the question is in good faith. To understand libertarian thought in general and their views on property rights and how contracts organically occur, refer to a primer book by someone like Rothbard. It has nothing to do with denying the social domain of humanity.