Let the market provide prior restraint

Often people ask their politicians to ban peaceful but potentially dangerous activity.

Recent political controversies include: fracking, owning a bit bull, carrying a gun, not being vaccinated, selling vaccines, etc.

I recommend that legislatures (state or local) be able to require liability insurance when people want to engage in what the political process deems potentially dangerous activities? (States already do this for driving an automobile).

The liability insurance would cover all damages without a monetary limit. If the activity is truly dangerous, the cost of such liability insurance will be very expensive. If the the activity is not dangerous, than the cost of insurance will be low.

There would be no need to ban these activities. The penalty for not having insurance for designated activities and the cost of insurance would effectively ban dangerous activities from concerned communities. We would still have the political process to decide what is considered dangerous, but the market would decide how dangerous is it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *