That is patent nonsense, and only shows you are at least as ignorant about Libertarian platforms and ideals, as you are about the national Constitution and Bill of Rights.

__________________
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

Why on earth would you suppose that? Of course not.

Everyone who was educated before 1980, when the Department of Education was founded, wonders what the hell you're talking about.

Instead of insulting me, why don't you educate us on how a small government without regulations would prevent corporations from dumping toxic waste anywhere they want to?

__________________
Obamanos!

A lot of different ways, here's one example:

Step 1. Deregulate toxic waste dumping.

Step 2. Wait for some company to dump toxic waste.

Step 3. Sue that company into bankruptcy in a civil court.

Step 4. Twiddle thumbs while glancing around to see if anyone else wants to give it a try.

And the families who die of cancer because of the toxic waste that was dumped? They are just collateral damage?

__________________
Obamanos!

Libertarians put the most importance on liberties, as the name implies. They do believe in limited government, not no government. Regulations are fine. They believe some government regulations and laws are needed. There is not rule for no government regulation. Libertarians are not anarchists.

They're the benefactors of the most expensive cancer treatments known to man, thanks to their profit from selling off the chemical company they now own.

If you think passing regulatory laws has done a better job than that, let me know.

As an aside, you could regulate such activities as externalities, and I doubt many libertarians would take issue with that.

If the standing law established by your elected representatives poses no bar to that action, then it would be theoretically permissible according to the law.

It would of course be a foolish thing to do given the risk of a lawsuit (the cost of which would probably exceed the alternative cost of proper toxic disposal).

Essentially, you are asking the question about how to deal with negative externalities. Such issues affect all political systems in various ways, not just libertarian theory. Heavily regulated markets under democratic governments are apparently incapable of dealing with a similar effect known as the 'tragedy of the commons'.

Essentially, the flaw is in our legal structure and our eonomic system that places no material value on non-market elements. This is a problem whether one approaches the issue from a libertarian perspective or an authoritarian statist perspective. The problem is not the perspective of approach, but the integral market failure to price non-market goods (fresh air or fish in the oceans).

Rabbit, I was having so much fun with my short, sniping answers. Why go and ruin it with a reasonable explanation?