I don't think you'll find any libertarian who will say that polluters or anyone else should be immune from liability for the harm they do to others.
That's what the courts are for, and it's only the anarchists who say we don't need a government-run court system. Most libertarians aren't anarchists, though.
With respect to narcotics distribution, yeah, I know what you mean... the local CVS has had a really significant negative impact on traffic in the area, and our taxes have to pay for the maintenance signal that went in at the entrance to its parking lot.
Cute, Michael. But are you suggesting that street dope peddlars aren't a problem, or that crack ought to be legalized, regulated and sold by CVS? I'm as much in favor of the 2nd Amendment as I know you are, but you'd need an arsenal to protect you from the results of legalizing drugs. I would probably make an exception for marijuana (whose only serious negative effect seems to be to hinder coherent thought and cause people to vote for Democrats), but other than that, regulation won't work for drugs whose sole purpose is abuse. CVS sells narcotic-based drugs, but only those with demonstrable pharmaceutical value. Crack, on the other hand, is what's in demand on the street, and if you've seen what that stuff does to people, well, no amount of libertarian theorizing can excuse it.