At the risk of stating the obvious: private property completely avoids this problem.
There's a lot of libertarian literature as to why private property is preferable to "public goods" in many instances.
There's a lot of libertarian literature as to why private property is preferable to "public goods" in many instances.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Gravelle and Rees: "The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual." Public goods include fresh air, knowledge, official statistics, national security, common language(s), flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting.
While I am aware the definition of a public good, your definition is not appropriate because flood control systems, lighthouses, and street lighting can be owned.
The problem the root comment touches is excessive use and for all of the above examples that are scarce (fresh air, common language, flood control systems, lighthouses, street lighting) there can be excessive use to the detriment of others and it can be avoided if these items are private property.
For others (the non-scarce - knowledge, language) you cannot take away the rights for others to use it. So there is no real sense in claiming it a public good because there is really nothing.
Finally, official statistics and national security depend too much on the definition to say to which category the belong.
> In sum, no one has a right to clean air, but one does have a right to not have his air invaded by pollutants generated by an aggressor.
Also see this quote [2]:
> There is, first of all, this stark empirical fact: Government ownership, even socialism, has proved to be no solution to the problem of pollution. Even the most starry-eyed proponents of government planning concede that the poisoning of Lake Baikal in the Soviet Union is a monument to heedless industrial pollution of a valuable natural resource. But there is far more to the problem than that. Note, for example, the two crucial areas in which pollution has become an important problem: the air and the waterways, particularly the rivers. But these are precisely two of the vital areas in society in which private property has not been permitted to function.
Agree or disagree, this is the typical libertarian response to externalities as far as I know. There's probably more to it w.r.t to public goods as "naturally given", and when something turns into private property, if you are look further into the literature.
1: https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollut...
2: https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution
EDIT: I'm assuming the question is in good faith. To understand libertarian thought in general and their views on property rights and how contracts organically occur, refer to a primer book by someone like Rothbard. It has nothing to do with denying the social domain of humanity.
Somehow, libertarians get through life without ever becoming aware of the existence of transaction costs. I don't know how they do it.
Just like the other 95% of people: complete economic illiteracy.
If so, then doing so still requires cooperation. I was responding to a comment which seemed to claim that private property was an alternative to social cooperation.