Thread: Simple question about car insurance

Originally Posted by DeathStar

uh, you aren't even allowed to drive anywhere without buying it, or else the state will tell you you're not allowed to drive your own car anywhere.

It's the law, and you know it.

What a stupid thread

Originally Posted by flounder

Sooo, you figure the only damage done is to another car huh? What about store fronts? Or a phone pole? a regular phone pole is 5,000 dollars, the larger ones ten thousand....What about injuries? Injury law suits are MUCH higher than damage done to an auto... Others have a right to be protected from those that drive a two thousand pound missile...and who should pay for that? the pedestrian???
I refuse to let you be irresponsible!!
Also in this day and age can most people do without a vehicle?, would not many people need a loan to purchase one? Who will protect the Banks interest?

Lemme ask you this: if someone arsons your house, will they necessarily be able to pay for it? Of course not.

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?

That is equal, analytically, to car insurance.

Originally Posted by johnnymo

It's the law, and you know it.

What a stupid thread

What an idiotic comment. It's the law that you can't smoke marijuana. Do you think we should be forced to not peacefully do as we please, simply because it's "the law"?

You have NO RIGHT to make it legal to violate my rights, in my humble (*)(*)(*)(*)ing opinion.

The entire authoritarian argument on this thread is that security over essential freedom is somehow necessary for this specific situation, and that majority rule is something to be respected.

How moronic.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

What an idiotic comment. It's the law that you can't smoke marijuana. Do you think we should be forced to not peacefully do as we please, simply because it's "the law"?

You have NO RIGHT to make it legal to violate my rights, in my humble (*)(*)(*)(*)ing opinion.

It's also the law that we can't murder, steal, speed run read lights, etc etc etc.

Stupid thread, really, really stupid! JMHO

Originally Posted by johnnymo

It's also the law that we can't murder, steal, speed run read lights, etc etc etc.

What does that have to do with my point? Seriously?

Stupid thread, really, really stupid! JMHO

I think since there's a chance you might blunder into me and make me trip and sprain my ankle on the sidewalk someday, I should be allowed to charge you 100 bucks a day in the form of "Insurance X" just so any health or other damages are covered in case you do so.

If you can fine me for car damages that I never caused, I can fine you for that.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

What does that have to do with my point? Seriously?



I think since there's a chance you might blunder into me and make me trip and sprain my ankle on the sidewalk someday, I should be allowed to charge you 100 bucks a day in the form of "Insurance X" just so any health or other damages are covered in case you do so.

If you can fine me for car damages that I never caused, I can fine you for that.

Done wasting my time. Seems like 99% of the membership sees this as I do.

Have a great day

Originally Posted by johnnymo

Done wasting my time. Seems like 99% of the membership sees this as I do.

Have a great day

You don't have the intelligence nor dignity, apparently, to even understand my should-be OBVIOUS point. You just want to fine me and punish me for things I never did.

Originally Posted by DeathStar

Lemme ask you this: if someone arsons your house, will they necessarily be able to pay for it? Of course not.

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?

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.

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.

That is equal, analytically, to car insurance.

My rewrite of your attempt at an analogy is analogous. Yours was not.

All insurance produces a "moral hazard," which means people tend to behave more recklessly when the responsibility for their actions is removed. People without insurance tend to take risk more seriously.