I, for one, would vote for you over any of the current major party candidates. I do, however, think you overestimate the need for government in some areas.
I agree with point 1). I think most people do, other than Somali Warlords and their like.
I think what you are trying to solve with 2) is better left to individuals. There will never be any surefire way of deciding what information is 'vital', is included in 'full disclosure' etc. Laws as vague as these always, in practice, degenerate to my-lawyer-is better-than-yours, jury shopping and other pathologies. Absent such laws, there is no reason why, for example, some form of 'standardized' contract for the most common transactions won't be written. These contracts have the advantage of being standard, widely used, and hence come with predictable legal precedent. And they are optional, so not everyone have to use them all the time.
Another problem is that such regulations tend to render a seller's efforts to build a reputation less valuable. A seller who has carefully cultivated a great reputation amongst an audience, can no longer benefit competitively by giving his 'word'. Instead he is subject to the same consumer protection laws as any random huckster, with the same cost of compliance. This leads to less incentive for him not to just act like a huckster in the first place.
3) The only 'monopolies' that can develop in a free world are those that are enforced by government, and possibly those related to physical resources. I think your land lease scheme would take care of the latter, and a reasonably limited government wouldn't contribute unnecessarily to the former. Most current day 'monopolies' are just companies someone finds hard to compete with (MS), or government sanctioned ones in (light) disguise (Telco's, utilities).
4) Hard to argue with that. Just make sure everyone has an equal 'claim' on these externalities. The right to emit CO2 should be given equally to each citizen, not as quotas to Exxon etc. Then Joe bicyclist could sell his share to Exxon, or if he so pleases, donate it to the Sierra Club.
5) For local roads, absence of government involvement does not mean a developer could not buy (or lease for a sizable term according to your scheme) a plot of land, put roads in place, and profit by selling off individual (now presumably more valuable) lots. The selling price could also include a contract to maintain roads for some lease term. Bigger arterials are a lot easier to price by usage.
I totally agree with you about obtaining government revenue from real estate rather than income. My 'scheme' would be a bit different than straight leases, but that's just details. Currently, most libertarians I know, especially American ones, seem very opposed to this. Most want government intrusion to, at the very least, stop at their property line. Since libertarian candidates are consistently getting less than 2% of the vote, and their share is not increasing, I think reworking some of their policy prescriptions are wise, though, and taking the hammer to some old dogmas about real property might be just the ticket.
I agree with point 1). I think most people do, other than Somali Warlords and their like.
I think what you are trying to solve with 2) is better left to individuals. There will never be any surefire way of deciding what information is 'vital', is included in 'full disclosure' etc. Laws as vague as these always, in practice, degenerate to my-lawyer-is better-than-yours, jury shopping and other pathologies. Absent such laws, there is no reason why, for example, some form of 'standardized' contract for the most common transactions won't be written. These contracts have the advantage of being standard, widely used, and hence come with predictable legal precedent. And they are optional, so not everyone have to use them all the time.
Another problem is that such regulations tend to render a seller's efforts to build a reputation less valuable. A seller who has carefully cultivated a great reputation amongst an audience, can no longer benefit competitively by giving his 'word'. Instead he is subject to the same consumer protection laws as any random huckster, with the same cost of compliance. This leads to less incentive for him not to just act like a huckster in the first place.
3) The only 'monopolies' that can develop in a free world are those that are enforced by government, and possibly those related to physical resources. I think your land lease scheme would take care of the latter, and a reasonably limited government wouldn't contribute unnecessarily to the former. Most current day 'monopolies' are just companies someone finds hard to compete with (MS), or government sanctioned ones in (light) disguise (Telco's, utilities).
4) Hard to argue with that. Just make sure everyone has an equal 'claim' on these externalities. The right to emit CO2 should be given equally to each citizen, not as quotas to Exxon etc. Then Joe bicyclist could sell his share to Exxon, or if he so pleases, donate it to the Sierra Club.
5) For local roads, absence of government involvement does not mean a developer could not buy (or lease for a sizable term according to your scheme) a plot of land, put roads in place, and profit by selling off individual (now presumably more valuable) lots. The selling price could also include a contract to maintain roads for some lease term. Bigger arterials are a lot easier to price by usage.
I totally agree with you about obtaining government revenue from real estate rather than income. My 'scheme' would be a bit different than straight leases, but that's just details. Currently, most libertarians I know, especially American ones, seem very opposed to this. Most want government intrusion to, at the very least, stop at their property line. Since libertarian candidates are consistently getting less than 2% of the vote, and their share is not increasing, I think reworking some of their policy prescriptions are wise, though, and taking the hammer to some old dogmas about real property might be just the ticket.