Originally Posted by DeathStar
You tried this before, and - like a zombie - you continue to trudge forward right through my repudiation of the comment. Let's see if you do it again.
Should you be allowed to legally FORCE everyone in your state/nation, to buy "Insurance X", to make sure that if someone does arson your house, the damages will be covered?
Arson requires a conscious criminal act. It is - by definition - illegal. There is no protected behaviour wrt to undertaking arson, therefore it is not analogous to driving, which is a protected behaviour (read: a licensed privilege).
There is no action associated with arson that puts someone's house at risk as a result of engaging in it. The closest I could come to offering one wouldn't fit the description of arson, but I'll offer it anyway.
If you contract a plumber or electrician to do work in your home, your home is exposed to a risk of fire as a consequence of that work. Such a fire would - necessarily - be the result of an unfortunate accident.
Like the driver, both the plumber and electrician are required to carry insurance to protect both themselves and your property from damage.
That better make sense to you, or you will be in serious jeopardy of being put on my ignore list.
My rewrite of your attempt at an analogy is analogous. Yours was not.
That is equal, analytically, to car insurance.
Last edited by Subdermal; Feb 26 2012 at 12:01 PM.
Paul Ryan 2016. By then, even the most stupid among us would be unable to deny the need.
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronaldus Magnus Reagan
Truth is, you could shove Obama's knowledge of small business operations and job creation up an gnats butt and it would rattle around like a marble in an empty supertanker. -- Neil Boortz