[whatshisface]

>but I consider the likelihood very low.

But you just said that the tort scheme would do the same thing in a more inconvenient way! Surely inconvenience is not an unacceptable sacrifice.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

That's not all I said. "You're just using a more convoluted, less effective route to get there. As an added drawback ..." To be very explicit: I think the tort scheme would achieve lower compliance, cause excess deaths, and would also be more expensive and less just in implementation.

And atop all that I don't consider the libertarian ideal to be a goal worthy of pursuit. So yeah. Not a fan.