I wouldn't rely on only fashion and torts to police chemical assault, any more than I would rely only on them to police spousal assault. I don't think the LP has enough consensus to specify all the details of how the legal system should police chemical assault, but I will never agree with Platform language saying that torts and fashion are the only acceptable libertarian response to it. Even a Rothschilds-control-the-Fed government-planned-9/11 conspiracy enthusiast like Aaron Russo protested against having to run for President under the LP's torts-only environmental plank.
If the Platform should say that private lawsuits should be the only response to chemical assault, why shouldn't the Platform say that about all kinds of assault? Why not hold high the Rothbardian banner of private defense agencies? Why hide the lamp of liberty under a basket?
I just don't agree that the LP Platform should enforce the narrow dogma that there is no such thing as what economists call market failure. That's technically a libertarian view, but the far more prevalent view among libertarian economists is that there are a small set of market failures that are worse than the corresponding possible government failure. Specifically, those are the market failures related to 1) pollution of common goods, 2) network club goods (e.g. roads and pipes), and 3) protection of life and liberty.
These exceptions are why libertarian extremism is so easy to ridicule. Ron Paul said in front of a cable TV audience of millions that "the market can deliver any service better than the government can", and even someone as clueless as Jon Stewart was able to force Paul to instantly backpedal: "Even defense, too?" Paul: "No, we have defense, but this militarism isn't defense, this is opposite of defense." Similarly, Sen. Mike Gravel instantly invoked streets last week when asked by Eric Sundwall about eliminating all government. When Sundwall cited private turnpikes from the colonial era, Gravel pointed out that this is 2008. Even self-described plumbline radical Steve Kubby says "some limited government is necessary" and doesn't begrudge the government sending you a water bill.
I'm tired of libertarians being dismissed as those who "lie awake at night worrying that somehow, somewhere, there are still a few miles of publicly owned sewer pipe". The mainstream minarchist libertarian perspective is becoming almost the default view among policy analysts with formal training in economics. If one wanted to conspire to undermine the effectiveness of libertarianism as a political agenda, it's hard to think of a more effective long-term strategy than to redefine libertarianism as anarchism. Sure, you might publish a few racist newsletters under the name of a leading libertarian politician, but that's only a short-term tactic, and few will buy the idea that libertarianism is inherently racist.