> If you can prove harm That's not strong property rights. Strong property rights would include any unauthorized use regardless of "harm". It would mean Does C

> If you can prove harm That's not strong property rights. Strong property rights would include any unauthorized use regardless of "harm". It would mean Does Chemical needs to remove every molecule of dioxin from soil of any homeowner in Midland, MI. However, the EPA allows a set amount. I shouldn't need to prove "harm", I didn't authorize them to place their chemicals on my property and that should be sufficient. Similarly, I didn't authorize coal plants to put toxins into my air on my property, and thus they should be prevented from any emissions until they find a way to keep it off my property. We haven't anything even approaching a libertarian ideal and we aren't going to, because people/companies wouldn't be allowed to pollute and that's bad for business. Instead we have a socialized system where the government decides how much people are allowed to pollute your property, and your singular voice is inconsequential.