Can start here:
Originally Posted by cdcox
Well then enlighten me about how you propose I be protected from the adverse effects of air pollution under your strict liability plan. I can't read your mind.
Did the govt, via the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service prevent the BP oil spill? Nope.
That Department has a spotty record as well as had other ethics issues.
Yet BP has to pay a fine to the govt. LOL! I'm sure it will go to good use.
Has BP paid out 16 billion in compensation and claims to others? Yes.
They paid a class-action settlement to resolve litigation brought with private plaintiffs
that is over 100,000 individuals and businesses who claimed economic and medical damages from the spill.
The former is your model—bureaucracy. The latter is strict liability.
As I said before, these two models were debated extensively in past threads. IIRC Taco John, myself, banyon and a few others took part in it. It’s all here somewhere with links and cases, including some of the cases you listed earlier. I don’t feel like re-doing by re-typing and searching for previous links again. If you want to know more you can use the search here or go to sites that support strict liability like CATO, FEE, Mises and Independent Institute. I'm just going to be making the same case as them and they will be more thorough. That is if you really want to be enlightened.
However, when I’ve received responses like the following, I am not sure it’s worth it.