[Victoribus Spolia]

Right now, it seems that we agree that sellers should be held accountable for the hidden dangers in their goods or services.

I prefer the term "liable" to "accountable," but other than that possible quibble, I think we agree on this point, Yes.

We seem to also agree that there is a difference between an active intent to harm and accidental harm.

Yes, the two should be differentiated in any system of ethics. They are not morally the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, now that we agree that sellers should be held accountable for hidden dangers in their goods and services, how do we do so?

Taking your example of anthrax in heroin, how would you know that this is what killed someone?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well, now that we agree that sellers should be held accountable for hidden dangers in their goods and services, how do we do so?

Taking your example of anthrax in heroin, how would you know that this is what killed someone?

Under AnCap conditions this would be done by a privatized justice system and privatized insurance system.

You would get blood work done, etc., not unlike how we would go about the same process under statist conditions, only the services provided by government are privatized in my scenario.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you would not know. It would, instead, be determined by professionals who are trained in that specific field.

Who would pay these expensive professionals?

[Victoribus Spolia]

So you would not know. It would, instead, be determined by professionals who are trained in that specific field.

Who would pay these expensive professionals?

I am assuming for sake of argument that I would not know...but I could.

Likewise, you are assuming that such professionals would be expensive. I actually doubt that they would be.

If we met in the middle and assumed that they were moderately priced, the victim would either pay to confirm his suspicions, or such services would already be included in his monthly payments to the firm.

If the perpetrator was found guilty, he would then be liable for the investigative costs along with the damages just as in an insurance case involving an automobile accident.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am assuming for sake of argument that I would not know...but I could.

Really? That sounds like it would take a coroner or other medical professional trained to see drug use, anthrax, and the two mixed up in order to correctly ascertain cause of death.

Likewise, you are assuming that such professionals would be expensive. I actually doubt that they would be.

Medical professionals are not inexpensive. And you would also have to pay for an investigator to organise the investigation. A lawyer to do the legal stuff, etc.

If we met in the middle and assumed that they were moderately priced, the victim would either pay to confirm his suspicions, or such services would already be included in his monthly payments to the firm.

If the perpetrator was found guilty, he would then be liable for the investigative costs along with the damages just as in an insurance case involving an automobile accident.

So, justice is reserved for those who can afford some incredibly wide insurance coverage, or the rich.

And what if the drug dealer had no money to pay if they lost the trial? Many people become drug dealers because they have no other economic opportunities. There would actually be financial disincentives to go after poor criminals.

This is, of course, assuming that insurance companies can provide coverage against crime.

Now, what about if the dealer cut the drug with something like Fentanyl? And the buyer ODs. Would the same procedure take place? Except, of course, for the different punishment because of the lack of murderous intent.

[Rugoz]

Huh?? They also know what's coming when they decline to pay off a protection racketeer. That does not mean the protection racket's extortion and violent reprisals are justified.

GET IT???

It's obvious the racketeer is at fault if he reacts with violence to a decline of contract.

But I'm bored of playing the lobotarian. It's what people do for intellectual self-stimulation in times of alt-righters and SJWs.