>>87157
>How would environment be protected in AnCapistan?
Essentially through property rights. But it depends on what you mean by protected, if you consider a farmer clearing woods to sow a field, or people draining a swamp to build a house as environmental damage then the environment would not be protected, but why would you want it to be protected? You'd have to be some kind of anti-human i.e. environmentalist, who sees the results of action making the world more suitable to human habitation as some kind of blight that must be prevented or slowed, if not reversed.
>What would stop companies from destroying environment for easier profit?
The same thing that stops companies from destroying the environment motivates you to change your oil and rotate your tires, essentially preserving the capital value of land. Say for instance you are a lumberjack, you might in the short-run get a higher profit by clear cutting the forest you own, but in the following years the land will produce nothing of value. You would find a much higher profit in preserving the forest and logging only as much as you can without hurting the forest. This was done in Europe throughout the middle ages, people would tend to their forests the same way they tended to the fields and you can see that continue in modern Europe as most logging is done on private land where the trees are cultivated.
Here's another example, take for instance a plant that is built on a river. The plant owns the river and the land around it. They could pump pollution into the water instead of disposing it some other way and save money, and they would be well within their right to do so. But by polluting the river they destroy the value of the river for other services. The river would be unusable for drinking, fishing, recreation, and no one would want to live next to it. So the money saved would have to be higher than money that could be made from all these activities. Would that mean that no business would ever pollute a river or lake? No, surely some rivers have very little use outside of dumping pollution, but I would expect most rivers to be kept acceptable for human enjoyment because of their innumerable uses.
A more important question is how do we stop the state from destroying the environment? In the United States the federal government during the industrialization of the latter half of the 19th century destroyed people's property rights by allowing businesses to pollute freely and reduce the value of other people's land. They kept rivers, oceans, and lakes as unowned and destroyed anyone's incentive to maintain their value. They confiscated forests and plains and incentivized over grazing and clear cutting because since no one owned the land (or only allowed to own such a small part land) that if they didn't clear cut it or over graze, someone else would. Also, ever heard of the Aral Sea? It's not much of one anymore thanks to the Soviets. I could go on but you get the idea.
>Also how would issue of animal abuse be solved?
Animals don't have rights like humans, they are inseparable, ethically speaking, from land. They're here for human use, whether to eat, for work, or for recreation. Since they have no more rights than a mountain or a tree animal abuse is purely subjective and based on personal feelings and disposition. That isn't to say that I'm indifferent to the thought of someone beating their dog or that I'm pro-kitten stomping, but even when this is illegal and punishable by law, it still goes on quite frequently. In AnCapistan, social ostracism would a powerful deterrent against these kinds of activities but just like the current situation, it would never be totally stopped. Some people just want to hurt animals regardless of the consequences.