"The fact that compensation would often not be forthcoming either because of inability to catch the offender or inability to pay if caught would motivate us to take out "crime insurance", which in turn would motivate the insurance company to catch such criminals as it profitably could. Criminals would have plenty to fear from these highly motivated companies, who of course would acquire from their clients the right to such compensation as they could exact, at least up to the level of full resitution. It would be interesting to know whether the net effect would be more satisfactory than the current system, but when you consider the all-but-total failure of the punishment system actually employed in, say, the United States and Canada, it is difficult to believe that it wouldn't be a major improvement. Everyone agrees that we have very far to go in the way of improving our system of responding to crime. It is a sobering thought that getting rid of one of the most spectacularly cost-effective systems in the history of mankind short of war is perhaps even less likely to be seriously considered than is abolition of war."
Jan Narveson, The Libertarian Idea, pages 230-231.
One of the few things I think the state should provide is a justice system. But it's blindingly obvious to me that what passes for a justice system in the UK doesn't provide "justice" unless your crime is against the state, in which case the justice is swift and merciless.
So if we allow insurers to go after criminals for crimes against the individual we free the rozzers up for more doughnut-eating and form-filling and hairdryer-waving and protester-bashing, while we "little people" actually get a form of justice. Or they might get jealous and start to actually take care of real crime again. What's not to like, either way?
So I can now even see a role for competition in the justice system. Bloody hell, isn't that a good idea?