I agree with your comment about working to get rid of the regulatory system (see: regulatory capture). This is good. But don't advocate for the food labeling band-aid that results in more government regulation.
If a drug manufacturer creates a drug that harms a patient, the patient should surely be able to sue the manufacturer - but the patient has to PROVE harm. If Monsanto is poisoning people, those people should seek legal redress against Monsanto in court by PROVING harm.
But this isn't the scenario you laid out. You laid out a scenario whereby organic crops were cross-pollinated by another farmer's GMO crops and you wanted to hold Monsanto liable. This is analogous to suing a golf ball manufacturer when your neighbor knocks out your window with his stray golf ball. The proper legal action would be against your neighbor, not the ball manufacturer.
Further, saying "courts have to decide" is a cop-out. We're talking about what the status of the law SHOULD be and why it should be that way. This, literally, is the topic of conversation.
Murray Rothbard has discussed such matters, here: http://mises.org/daily/2120
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: