WVa isn't the only jurisdiction to lose surgeons over malpractice suits. Perhaps the electorate in those states will ask their politicians to limit liability, akin to "good Samaritan" laws that protect civilians. That doesn't seem too radical to me. What would you propose?
I think that laws that limit liability are unjust, because they define economic value in objective terms. Although the current system is tyrannous towards physicians, tort reform has a high potential for tyranny against patients. "Sorry I accidently cut off your arm - here's your $200 that I owe you by law."
Being a follower of the Austrian school, I believe that economic value is subjectively defined by individuals, and that prior to entering into any contractual relationships (an exchange of surgery for money) the two sides should agree to the terms of the exchange of property. Part of each contract should be a mutually agreed upon arbitrator working outside the govt that the parties should turn to if there is a disagreement after the exchange. So my proposal, seen understandably as quite radical by most people, is private arbitration rather than jury trials.
BTW, the problem with private law and justice is that not everyone will subscribe to the same system, resulting in extraordinary conflict. A major role of law is not just to distinguish good from bad behavior. It is to provide a rulebook to play the game by. Most rules can be perfectly arbitrary (drive on the right hand side, red means stop, etc.), but they have to be the same for everyone.
That's what Rothbard proposed, but it's not what Friedman proposed. Friedman's system is much more elegant IMO.
Even though I count myself solidly in the libertarian camp, I do believe that a civilization can be measured by the strength of its institutions. Justice is the major one of those institutions that defines a society.
Does justice absolutely have to be provided by a central govt? |
