I have been subjected to the same subjective 'school teacher talk' that you have, but I find most of it decidedly lacking in the area of objective documentation of those assertions.
The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast...
It may, or it may not, but Phytopthora is not man's creation, and it could wage it's attack through natural means too, which would have a similar result.
"Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species. "
Clearly you have that opinion anyway, but I question whether it is based solely on objective observation.
" If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?"
It would be perfectly legitimate to market to individuals or groups willing to do business with them, but it is not legitimate for government to compell me to pay for it. That would be a clear violation of separation of church and state. ( I don't pay tithes to the catholic church, or the mormon church through taxes, do I?)
"Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line?"
You Bet!
" What if you destroy the value of private property with it?"
Then it is a Tort, to be settled by the constitutionally created courts.
"You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too?"
Not if I'm not compelled by law to pay for it.
" why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours?"
They should not.
" How do you propose to resolve such disputes..." As I stated above, that was the original intended purpose of our courts.
"If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony."
I find that sarcastic, and fail to see how it adds to this discussion. - I was hoping that you would provide motivation to read your book, both to myself, and to others lurking here. :-)
I am not going to go over the fossil record for your benefit. Suffice it to say that the archaeologists I have dealt with were reliable and honest people and there are charlatans in the business. When you find bones, tooth marks fitting human dentition, and nearby tools or weapons on a regular basis, it is pretty compelling evidence. When you confront records of declining bounty payments against population surveys it is pretty compelling evidence. Your stance appears to be one of having to prove that the species were destroyed by people beyond whatever standard pleases you, which I doubt is possible. At this point, I am willing to accept a preponderance of evidence. Other records are historical (such as the dodo and passenger pigeon) and you are certainly welcome to show me what is lacking about that. (See? Two can play that game.)
Unlike many, I don't see anything necessarily immoral about species loss. In some cases extirpation is absolutely an essential process especially when in the presence of humans. For example, I think that the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in my area would be an ecological disaster. I just want an honest means of assessment of the relative risk of adverse impact to producing assets and I don't want it made by the state and I don't want producers to operate without accountability.
Your continued (and rather broad) admonishments that you don't want any laws to coerce you to do anything to protect species indicates to me that you haven't read what I wrote very carefully. Hence my tendency to get a little testy. Free market management means just that. It is a way of verifying an honest assessment of the economic risk of loss of an asset associated with economic activity so that pooled risk can insure that asset instead of relying upon the police power of the state to enforce rules by fiat. If you went to my website and came away with the idea that I am proposing a bunch of laws, I can honestly ask how. It sure wasn't in anything I wrote.
You say you want a system that only compensates an owner via tort after the asset is destroyed. That is patently ridiculous. Nobody rational will accept the equivalent of waiting until you injure a kid or destroy private property with your car to find out that you were an uninsured driver with no ability to pay just compensation, nor should they expect the state to be the insurer of last resort.
Let's look at your idea in the example case of phytopthora on imported rhododendrons. Your assertion is, that because phytopthora is a "natural" phenomena its introduction isn't necessarily an issue. I have seen the photos of infested oaks around the source nurseries (called sudden oak death syndrome) and know for a fact that the fungus originated in Europe (the lead biologist studying the problem is an acquaintance of mine). By the time anyone could prove that you were the sole source of phytopthora, demonstrate the scope of the loss, and prove that phytopthora was the sole cause of that loss, the fungus would have escaped containment and that loss account would be WAY beyond your ability to compensate the (by then) numerous owners of dead trees. You would run for protection under bankruptcy laws. If that is the system you want, then we surely do disagree.