On one level you appear to be saying that pollution levels are independent of the presence or absence of a "free market". Is that correct?
No. And that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing anyway since it's possible that the pollution level is below the ideal level. In fact, for people polluting their own property in ways that don't harm others, I suspect our society has pushed the pollution level well below the optimum level.
Optimum level for what?
I'm not sure I understand completely what you're asking
Well primarily I'm saying that "Optimum" in English usually takes on one of two senses. One in which it is self-referential meaning "the most possible". In that case the "optimum level for pollution" would be "The most pollution possible" the second sense
requires a reference to external criteria to judge how close the value is to it's goal. I.e. "Optimum level for pollution to maintain our current standard of living". Since you don't seem to be talking about the former and you haven't given any clues to what quality the later sense is being measured by. It seemed natural to pose the question.
First, I hope we agree that the optimum level of pollution isn't none at all. No pollution would mean we couldn't even breathe, lest the carbon dioxide we exhale worsen global warming. We couldn't even use fire to cook our food. And of course, the optimum level of pollution isn't as much as we can possibly create. There are all sorts of things we could do that, but for the pollution they'd produce, might be great ideas but when you factor in the pollution, are clear losers.
It appears here that you are defining the term "pollution" in a sense where any level of some element is pollution. That's neither how I would use the term nor how Wikipedia and Mirriam-Webster appear to use the term (assuming a modern sense of 'contaminate') . So no, I'd not call any amount of carbon dioxide "pollution". So even if I agree the "optimum level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or produced by humans) is not zero. I don't think we will get much further without you answering the question: "Optimum for what?"
Now, it doesn't immediately follow that there is some perfect mathematically optimum level of pollution.
Why? Given what assumptions?
Presumably, for any precisely defined X, there's a level that maximizes X, but we get a circularity when we try to figure out what the X should be.
What is X? A function? A value?
So, by optimum level of pollution, I mean the level of pollution that maximizes X, for the optimum value of X.
How is the maximal value of X different than the optimum value of X?
I don't know precisely what X is,
No kidding.
but I do know approximately. Health is good. Wealth is good. Disease is bad.
That's oversimplified to the point of being nonsensical. You don't create "health". You create medicine. While you could state one of the goals of medicine as "homeostasis". Every medicine that has an effect
and has a degree of risk both in the pollutants created by the manufacturer but also in the auxiliary effects of the medicine. This can't be what you call "health" because it doesn't take into account fitness of purpose or peoples personal goals. i.e. Should someone take an NSAID? Should they take one if they don't have an headache? Some people take NSAIDs others refuse. Which one is right? Based on these statements can you say that the creation of NSAIDs was "good"?
Similarly "wealth" isn't just more money in my pocket - it would be a question of what I would have to do to get the wealth. Most people I know are in the position to scale their income by say 10%-20% however they don't because it's not worth it.
Is disease intrinsically bad? What kind of disease? With what kind of prognosis? Was the disease the result of something we did?
One of the reasons we need a free market is because without one, we don't have any ability to compare things. If there were no exchanges, how many dollars is one bitcoin worth? Nobody could ever even have any clue. I mean optimum in the mix of everyone's weighted rational preferences.
Now this sounds like equivocation again. Seemingly I can compare things. Does that mean we have a "free market"? However it would seem you're not advocating things staying the way they are. So what you appear to want is a "more free market". However arguing that it allows me to compare things - something I appear to be already capable of - hardly makes your point.
Yes, that's not precise. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
I would have settled for cogent.