avq

Isn't this only true for localized and concentrated pollution? how can nuisance laws protect unborn future generations?

what about all the externalities that go unchecked by nuisance law by virtue of the injured party's inability to hale the polluter into court in time or at all?

Does your research risk misuse by policymakers who will say "we don't care if its not their fault, this person who has committed a violent act who we've scanned/genotype (or w/e it is) has a biological risk of reoffending, and must be removed from society"?

cooperation is preferred over coercion, certainly. But how do classical liberals like yourself reckon with situations where either government coercion or private coercion must result?

that is, if government doesn't use its monopoly of force to coerce a certain behavior, actors in private society will use force to coerce one another?

This seems like an obvious basis for (some) criminal laws and police. How do you draw the line between areas where public law is needed and private law will suffice?

for researcher Rick Nevin's argument that causation can be inferred from this correlation: (PDF) Lead and Crime: Why this correlation does mean causation

would everyone? What about those determined by the actuarial risk assessments to pose a greater risk?

E.g., in Virginia's risk assessment sentencing, an unmarried man in his mid-20s is almost assured to be incarcerated, by virtue of the actuarial model.

Even more starkly, the state noted that the model would be even more accurate if it used race as a predictive factor. Aren't there harms of some accurate but troubling models?

EDIT: upshot of my question is … don't you have to count the people being put into prison as part of "everyone"?