I could be wrong, but I think Matt Yglesias is right about this:
[I]f you examine the classic liberal canon you’ll find not a single iota of support anywhere in it—not in Smith not in Mill not in Bastiat not in Hayek not in Friedman not anywhere—for the assertion that it’s an important free market principle that the Koch brothers should be allowed to put pollution into the air without compensating the billions of people around the world who are impacted by this activity. And yet an absolute consensus has developed around this idea in right-of-center American circles ...Not that it would have made any difference if Smith, Mill, Bastiat, Hayek, or Friedman had advocated the right to pollute the air, but to my knowledge, they did not.
Friedman arguably came close in "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits," his seminal 1970 glibertarian manifesto advocating know-nothing, brazen insouciance in business management. But note the terms closely:
Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of Government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such "social" purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems. [emphasis mine]Maybe Friedman was just laying down rhetorical ground he would quickly gather back up in subsequent scratchings, but he is openly conceding that government -- or, I gather, capital-g Government if you're glibertarian -- acts within its proper boundaries to set limits on pollution.