[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Skans

Basically, Louisiana will require the victim of a theft pay a BFP the price paid if the victim wants the item back. ....

No, that's not what the statute you quoted says. Article 524 of the Louisiana Civil Code reads in pertinent part (emphasis added):

The owner of a lost or stolen movable may recover it from a possessor who bought it in good faith at a public auction or from a merchant customarily selling similar things on reimbursing the purchase price....

So the obligation of the original owner to reimburse a good faith purchaser applies only when the good faith purchaser acquired the item at a public auction or from a merchant selling similar things. So the obligation of reimbursement would not apply when the purchaser acquired the item through a private sale.

See also Article 526:

The owner of a thing is entitled to recover it from anyone who possesses or detains it without right and to obtain judgment recognizing his ownership and ordering delivery of the thing to him.

Originally Posted by Skans

....The theory is that the victim of the theft could have insured against the theft and be made whole; the BFP has no way of protecting himself from the loss.

Cite authority. Actually, you're making that up.

The actual reason for the unique Louisiana rule is that Louisiana is a Civil (Roman) Law jurisdiction. Vestiges of Civil Law principles are also found in the community property systems of marital property adopted in nine States.

The differences between the rights of a good faith purchaser of stolen goods under Common Law principles and Civil Law principles were outlined this very interesting article, Schwartz, Alan, "Rethinking the Laws of Good Faith Purchase" (2011). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4166, pp 1335 -- 1336 (footnotes omitted):

...Uniformity across legal systems does exist, but only at the level of first principles. Common law and civil code systems all begin with the fundamental principle that, ordinarily, one cannot convey greater rights than one has-a principle embodied in the Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet. The variation across legal systems arises because countries create significantly different exceptions to the nemo dat principle. Under the law of good faith purchase as it is embodied in the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), the nemo dat rule is subject to only two exceptions. First, under the "voidable title" rule, if the original owner is induced-say, by fraud or deceit-to transfer goods under a transaction of purchase, the transferee acquires the power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. Second, under the "entrustment" rule, if the original owner entrusts goods to a merchant who deals in goods of the kind, the merchant has the power to transfer the owner's title to a buyer in the ordinary course of business. But, as noted above, in many other legal systems an innocent buyer can acquire rights in yet a third context where stolen goods are transferred to a merchant dealer who, in turn, sells the goods to a bona fide purchaser for value. The buyer, if in good faith, prevails against the original owner under the Market Overt rule.....