Simple question about car insurance

They do force us to buy their product. EVERYONE either has to drive or has to rely on someone else to drive them places, this day and age, at some point(s) or another. And if you drive without insurance, they beat you up and take YOUR car and property.

That wouldn't be TOO bad if they gave you SOME of it BACK and/or regulated Big Car Inscamance to ONLY pay for damages of peoples' vehicles, rather than allow them to be for-massive-profit. But until it becomes voluntary rather than forced on us, car insurance companies should not have the right to be for-profit.

 

Just shut up and ride a bike.

 

Spoken like a true statist. Silencing dissent and suggesting an alternative to some aggressive unjust regulation/law that you support, then trying to call that "voluntary".

Well, I don't believe in income taxation, but how 'bout we just have a 100% income tax rate on EVERYONE. If you don't want all your money STOLEN from you, then you have the "option" of not making any income. How about that? Same logic as the way car inscamance is currently run in this country.

It's all due to Big Corporate Lobby. Without corporations lobbying/bribing the government to eliminate competition in their favor, this (*)(*)(*)(*) wouldn't happen. It needs to end.

 

Well we already voted on the car insurance one, let's put your idea out for a vote too. If the voters agree to both, then you can call em equal. Until then, your beliefs just don't carry the same weight as our law.​

 

How many idiotic laypeople, or even how many unjust/idiotic "smart" people, that want to vote in favor or against something, is NOT the test of how economical, just etc. that it is.



And the bigger point is now this: My only suggestion that I will NOT EVER compromise/budge on at all, ever, not ever, as in NEVER, is simply that IF we going to let the government and big car inscamance STEAL from people in order to cover risks associated with driving, we should at least be able to regulate said big car inscamance until the point where it barely makes a profit and almost 100% of the money that big car inscamance makes, goes to paying for vehicle damages, rather than fortune-making profit and costly advertisements. (*)(*)(*)(*) that.

 

It's not economical to offer welfare. There are a lot of laws I wouldn't call just. *shrug* Our laws are not about what you or I think is economical or just, they're an attempt to represent the combined will of the 300 million partners who own this country.​

More government regulation... sigh. That always ends well (not).​

 

Laws shouldn't necessarily be about what's economical, but about justice and sometimes even security. But false illusory security that costs everyone way too much money than necessary, for instance, Big Car Inscamance, is just bull (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*). Period, end of story, no discussion, no debate. The end.

No. Regulating government itself is not "more government regulation". I suggest that we not allow government entities, and yes, Big Car Inscamance is a GOVERNMENT ENTITY since it's FORCED on you BY government, to be fortune-ly profitable nor should we allow them to charge whatever they want for their services.

Since government, and yes again big car inscamance IS the GOVERNMENT since it uses government force to force you to buy it's products, is the one wielding the gun making you buy things from it, they shouldn't also be allowed to charge whatever they want. If they're allowed to do that, then they are NOTHING but ROBBERS.

 

I'm still waiting for you to prove how car insurance is forced on anyone.

My 7-year-old son, for example, does not have car insurance. Neither does my cousin, who lives in NYC. No one is doing anything to them, and the government doesn't care that they don't have car insurance.

 

yeah uh, they give you unjust rules that say that you can't drive your car on roads unless you buy it. That's not just. That'd be like me (*)(*)(*)(*)ing telling you that you can't smoke weed that you bought with YOUR own money and then walk on public sidewalks...

...ohhhhh wait, you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing statists ALREADY tell ME that I can't do that!!

You (*)(*)(*)(*)ing statists need to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing back the (*)(*)(*)(*) off. Seriously.

 

Are you forced to drive a car? Because, if you're not forced to drive a car, how are they forcing you to do anything?

Like, in order to fly a commercial jet, you need to have a pilot's license. Is the government forcing me to get a pilot's license??? I'm not trying to fly a jet.

 

What a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded analogy. If I OWN a car, I should be able to do (*)(*)(*)(*)ING ANYTHING I WANT with it unless it DIRECTLY violates someone else. HOW THE MOTHER(*)(*)(*)(*) is a car ANY fundamentally different from ANY kind of physical property?

Now again, don't get me wrong. I'll accept your authoritarian forced insurance on me, as long as I get to tell you how much you get to make in profit from it: NOTHING, preferably. If you ONLY cover the costs of damages from accidents that occur, and spend NO money on insurance ads and fortune profit for your greedy (*)(*)(*)(*)ing self, THEN I'll accept you forcefully imposing insurance on me.

 

It's not. When you drive it on someone else's property without their consent you are violating their rights. The people of your state own the roads, they offer you their consent to drive on them conditional on your having auto insurance. No insurance, no consent.
​

He isn't authorized to negotiate the issue with you. As a group, the people of your state have made the conditions of using their property clear and those conditions are not subject to your approval or further negotiation.​

 

So..you're saying that not only am I forced to buy car insurance, but car insurance companies (it's THEM that "own" the companies, not "the public") can also charge me ANYTHING they want for it???

SERIOUSLY?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

 

No. You are not forced to buy car insurance.​

 

NO government program (such as Big Car Insurance) should be allowed to even make much of a personal profit from their services.

Also, everyone needs to drive, or rely on others that drive. The more you jack up car insurance costs, along with any other cost associated with ground transportation, the cost of EVERYTHING in society goes up. So they ARE forcefully imposing costs onto EVERYONE, whether they drive or not.

The more they STEAL from people in the form of Big Car InSCAMance, the more the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. Goods. Services. (*)(*)(*)(*) at WALMART for hell's sake. EVERYTHING goes up when the cost of driving and other transportation goes up. Same is true of energy, albeit that is a tangent.

 

Car insurance isn't a government program.​

And yet it's very expensive to create the roads that make driving to many locations easier. Which is why the people of your state grouped together to make driving easier by collectively creating roads which you are free to use -- so long as you abide by the rules established for that shared resource. ​

 

Bingo. That's the whole problem. If we had anarcho-capitalism, then no government programs would exist. But since Big Car Insurance uses the GOVERNMENT to ENFORCE laws requiring you to buy their services IF you are to drive, then that is a government program.

Car insurance lobbied and bribed the government until the government started forcing everyone to have car insurance. Then I'm sure the cost of car insurance SKYROCKETED and would become far LESS expensive if it were to be made voluntary.

We need to REGULATE how much Big Car InSCAMance is allowed to charge us for it, UNTIL it becomes VOLUNTARY to have car insurance imposed on your vehicle for driving on public roads.

Oh yeah, and don't give me "but most people want to have big car insurance steal from you so they can have their false illusory security" bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If it were up to most people, Big Car Insurance wouldn't be nearly as expensive. Plus, "most people" don't directly control the cost of Big Car Insurance. Only BCI has the ability to make that privileged decision, unjustly and immorally.

What if the majority of people said that you have to not wear a pink leotard while driving on "their" road? Would you want to force people to not wear casual clothing simply for being on public roads?

 

You are mistaken. The insurance company does not use the government to require you to use their insurance if you drive on the roads. You are free to use anyone's insurance. In my state, you are even free to insure yourself by posting a bond. Car insurance is not a government program.

If you wanted to setup a government agency or non-profit org that offers car insurance at cost to compete with private insurance, I might not object. If you want to dictate how much profit a private company can make... well, I think that's improper.

I would not want to force people to wear a pink leotard. I do not want to require people to buy insurance or wear motorcycle helmets to use public roads. I do not want to pay income tax or put out my garbage every Thursday. My wants are irrelevant, as are yours. When you partner with other people, as you and I have partnered with 300 million others in enterprise known as America, our wants don't get to trump the agreements we make with our partners.​

 

My suggestion is that we not let car insurance companies spend the money they make from coercion for anything other than covering damages of vehicles. Nothing more.

If we designed infastructure in a safer way than just rubber wheeled vehicles swerving whichever what way they want to on a tar road, that'd be WAY better than forced insurance.

 

That is because republicans block taxation on the rich or everyone who needs services from the government will receive them

Car insurance is a simple ponzi scheme run by the private enterprise to profit

It along with health care insurance should be ran by the government so that the money paid into the pool is objectively distributed to those in need and the rest can be saved for better uses towards the country

 

You claim car insurance is a Ponzi scheme. It is not and you might Google 'Ponzi scheme' to find out what constitutes a Ponzi scheme.

And your proposal that the govt collect all the monies for car insurance and health insurance is a giant Socialistic leap towards Communism.

Even IF insurance WAS a Ponzi scheme and its not, I'd still take that over Communism.

 

Pon·zi scheme noun \ˈpän-zē-\
Definition of PONZI SCHEME

: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks​

(You're confusing car insurance with social security.)​