Nozick, Prohibition, and No-Fault Motor Insurance

ABSTRACT No‐fault insurance schemes involve prohibiting exercise of the natural rights of individuals to recover damages from those whose negligence causes them harm. Public debate about no‐fault emphasises consequentialist benefits, and takes little account of the putative rights of individuals to recovery. I argue, however, that even on a relatively extreme rights‐based conception of justice, such as Robert Nozick’s, it may be possible to justify a no‐fault scheme. The argument proceeds by: (1) elucidating what compensation the Nozickian must offer in return for prohibiting an activity such as the private recovery of damages; and consequently (2) arguing that there is no prima facie reason to think that the compensation afforded by participation in a no‐fault scheme would be any less adequate than that afforded by participation in a system of tort law