We have different preferences about what's the right security/freedom ratio.
> You're not supposed to store loaded guns unsecured on your front porch (not around here anyways).
I don't think the government or anyone has any say about where or how I may keep my guns.
People believe they might have a say, so there are laws on the books, but they're frequently taken down by the courts.
> So how about the middle ground: Do you believe that the EPA should impose restrictions on companies' or citizens' right to dump whatever toxic waste they want into rivers?
I believe it shouldn't, but that's just my opinion.
You may not believe it, but in terms of efficiency and keeping the environment, it doesn't matter (see below)
> If you think the physical commons should be protected from predictable harm by negligence or reckless disregard, why not the digital?
I don't believe in in the physical word, and I don't believe it in the digital world either.
Regardless of my beliefs, there's a nobel prize winner who's shown that it doesn't matter how the rights are initially assigned, as long as parties can negotiate with no transaction costs.
Check the Coase theorem.
The EPA imposing restrictions create transaction costs, so I think we're better off without them