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?

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?

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"?

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

Despite the supposed presumption of innocence, the political incentives make the system err strongly on the side of false negatives, right?

Judges setting bail, parole boards deciding early release, prosecutors negotiating plea bargains, etc., never want to be the one that let the proverbial Willie Horton loose. Will adding biological predictors assuage them?

And how could they be used at an early enough stage, like the initial bail decision?