Is It Possible To Reconcile Tort Reform And Libertarian Philosophy?

Um.  This isn’t necessarily a libertarian issue so much as a logical one.  The problem is that jury determination of penalties is arbitrary, and incalculable so that risk is un-measurable, and that penalties of scale are just passed on to consumers.  This means that lawsuits can be pursued as lottery ticket purchases by all but the defendant, and that organizations must seek to escape rather than honestly resolve disputes.

The libertarian argument would require the elimination of limited liability, the removal of employee indemnification, and of management and board liability. All of these existing protections were provided by the government in order to allow abuses of the law in order to increase employment and tax revenues. So, instead, libertarians would recommend that all employees and all employers carry insurance against malfeasance. And that insurance companies would require a great deal of contractual adherence, training in exchange, in order to cover losses.  Misbehavior would break the contract, pierce any corporate veil, and open every employee, manger, executive, and board member in the causal chain to personal suit.

If you want a less corrupt america, then remove the government from the process – because the government is the cause.

This is the best I can do in short form, but it should get the libertarian point across: the common law, civic participation, personal accountability, and insurance companies provide market incentives that bureaucratic monopolies do not.

Leave a Reply