Fraud, which is generally what you are talking about, is one of the weakest parts of Libertarian thought. Specifically, they are very, very careful not to defin

Fraud, which is generally what you are talking about, is one of the weakest parts of Libertarian thought. Specifically, they are very, very careful not to define some terms too tightly. I would bet quite a bit of money that, under a Libertarian regime, restrictions would be worse, not better, than what currently exists. For example, "We hold that rights to property, including real property, are individual rights and, as such, are entitled to the same protections as all other individual rights. The owners of property have the full right to acquire, trade, control, use, dispose of, rent, collateralize, or enjoy their property in any manner, without interference, unless the exercise of their control infringes upon the valid rights of others." "Infringing on the valid rights of others" is the very fine edge in this case that can slice just about anywhere you want to put it. I could, for example, build a feedlot next door to your house. Except, "Pollution of air, water, and land violates rights. Polluters, including government, should have strict liability for harms caused by pollution. Strict liability should regulate pollution, not government agencies nor arbitrary government standards." (On the other hand, what exactly is the strict liability for the harm of stench and effluvia? The loss of property value? How would you determine that?)