Simple question about car insurance

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by DeathStar, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JESUS (*)(*)(*)(*)ING CHRIST.

    Should we also force people to not go to swimming pools without paying "swimming pool" insurance because I might jump into the pool when you're under water, unknowingly, and break your neck? Why or why not? Answer that directly, please.

    WHO gets to determine whether I can drive my OWN car??????

    yeah. So should we charge people for "bicycle" insurance? Why or why not? Should we charge people for "walking insurance" just in case I walk into you on the sidewalk and make you trip and sprain your ankle, or trip onto the street onto incoming traffic?
     
  2. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Short answer: no ones, and you don't have to. The thing with car insurance (also motorcycle helmets, Bluetooth headsets, and child seats) is that the government isn't requiring you to purchase or use any of them. Car insurance is not mandatory and you are not forced to buy it.

    The way those laws work is if you want to use state or federally owned resources, the government has some rules regarding their use that you need to abide by. Just like you might have rules about folks taking off shoes when they enter the house you own or that your club might have rules about using the pool they own. It's like a business saying if you want to eat in this diner, you must wear a tie. They haven't forced you to wear a tie, simply refused to allow you to use their diner without one.

    Not saying I agree or disagree with the rule, just saying this isn't about rights. It's about making a public offering that has a string attached.
     
  3. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree with mandatory insurance on the sole basis that it punishes careful drivers.

    However, I do agree that driving is a privilege and not a "right". Since the mandatory requirement, and the amount of coverage, is mandated by States and not Federal, then I feel that States are completely within their rights and therefore it is a just law. If the Federal Government mandated liability insurance, then that would be wrong and unconstitutional.
     
  4. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But that's the entire point: whether or not one "should" agree or disagree with it. I say we "shouldn't" agree with it.
     
  5. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. But you have to also consider the economic consequences of it. Socialized car insurance gives people the incentive to take more risks than they would otherwise; it gives them the incentive to buy more expensive vehicles because they might think "hey, my insurance will cover it if I ever get in a wreck or hit someone", etc.

    That should be obvious
     
  6. govtdog

    govtdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, then you would agree that I could just shoot you in the head and bury you in a shallow grave and not be responsible for that either... right? IMO, that is just voluntarily not your fault either, or mine according to your BS... sorry. YO FBI my friends....I am just talking...
     
  7. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But one has to wonder what is next? Children can and do cause intentional and unintentional damage to property of others. Will we eventually be required to have liability insurance to cover any damage our children do?
     
  8. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can do a HELL of a lot of damage to a fast-moving vehicle with my OWN BODY. If I were to, for any reason or no reason, walk in front of a car moving at high speeds, it might, especially with today's flimsy models, total that car.

    Should I be charged 100 bucks a month for "walking insurance" just so I can walk outside???
     
  9. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiotic. If you intentionally aggress against me and then hide from being exposed for your crime, that is..a CRIME. An ACTUAL crime.

    Who's rights am I violating by walking across a street in case I have to go somewhere? How about, instead of walking, who's rights am I violating by driving a car somewhere? No one's? That's right. So why should I be fined for something I didn't do?
     
  10. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I wouldn't support it, but I do support the requirement that you must have a swim suit on to use the pool.



    You do. You don't need insurance or even a drivers license to drive your own car. Many folks with large properties have multiple vehicles that are driven on them daily with no insurance. Now if you take that car onto a publicly owned road, it becomes a different issue. The rules of that road are defined by the owner of that road -- the public through their representatives.
     
  11. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah. Authoritarians will always cook up something. Security over liberty. :roll:
     
  12. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That should only apply to males. :D

    And that is not necessarily just. I shouldn't have to be fined for a crime I didn't commit.

    And yet again..do you not realize the economic consequences of socialized, forced car insurance? It's not quite as bad as Obamacare, but it's half way there.
     
  13. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    prude :lol:
     
  14. govtdog

    govtdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh? I guess I should have known about arguing against an idiot but oh my God, here I go again....

    Car insurance protects those of us primarily who might be injured by those against of YOU. It includes our property and our bodily injury and that else might be included.
    I might not like how the premiums are figured, but, auto insurance is necessary under Obama and any other President who allows crimaliens in the country.

    Otherwise, without insurance, if you damaged my car or property, I would nee d to equally damage your car, self, or property equally.
    Doesn't that make sense?
     
  15. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63

    If you're in the pool and not wearing a swim suit, you broke the rules. If you're driving on a public road and don't have auto insurance you committed a crime. The crime isn't getting into an accident, it's not following the rules of the road.


    No one is forced to buy car insurance ... quite different than Obamacare where folks are forced to buy health insurance. And yes, I felt both were bad ideas and short sighted solutions to serious problems. I just granted that the former was constitutional and didn't violate anyone's rights. I'm can't say the same of Obamacare.
     
  16. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another stupid response. You have no right to not be financially responsible for damage you cause to other's persons or property. Car insurance is a simple acknowledgement of the potential level of liability for harm. Obviously more harm can come from driving a vehicle than from walking.

    But you're not indemnified simply because you walk.

    This is ridiculous; there is no logic to your response. Part of the consideration of the purchase of a new vehicle is the cost to insure it. One of the reasons I bought a Nissan Z in 2003 instead of a Porsche 911 was insurance cost. If I didn't have to carry higher costing insurance for the more expensive car, I may have purchased the more expensive car!

    Stupidity. Accidents cause higher rates. You don't have the ability to think critically on this (or many) topics.

    Since I am a Ron Paul voter, your answer here just continues your long line of stupid responses.
     
  17. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly.....(consider yourself repped since I can't rep ya).
     
  18. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And my contention is that I shouldn't be fined for a crime I didn't commit.

    And do you care to address the fact that socialized car insurance causes people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take, which is economically dangerous? Would people buy more expensive cars, or less expensive cars, if they couldn't necessarily rely on socialized car insurance to pay for damages? I say the answer is obvious.

    It is every bit as much of a violation of my rights, as it would be to charge me for "walking insurance" just because I could accidentally, or purposely, walk in front of a fast moving car, and cause a lot of damage and indeed, possibly kill the person in the car or make them cause a crash pile-up.
     
  19. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, I can cause a hell of a lot of damage to most modern flimsy built cars just by walking. If they ran into me or most average-sized humans, at anywhere near high speeds, it would badly damage the car and perhaps cause a crash pile-up.

    Should I be fined for another crime I didn't commit, and that is, walking across a street? In other words, charged for "walking insurance" because I might cause damages to other peoples' cars from them crashing into me while I walk? This is NO different.

    I find that strange. If people aren't necessarily protected by socialized car insurance, they'll buy less expensive cars just in case they get in a wreck. If I were to opt out of buying car insurance like I should be allowed to do, I'd buy a relatively non-expensive car just in case it got wrecked.

    I'd rather buy a non-expensive car, than an expensive car, if I had no insurance that would cover the cost of totaling said car for me.
     
  20. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't make sense, no. Now if I ACTUALLY hit you on the road, then maybe I should be charged for it. Until then, you can go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself. Got it?
     
  21. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would think that car insurance is meant to protect the person that BUYS said insurance..instead, I guess it's meant to protect other people that don't pay for the car insurance that you're forced to pay for.

    Sounds an awful lot like..socialism. How strange. 8)
     
  22. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One could, maybe, (I'm not quite sure about this either), argue that people should have to be able to prove that they could pay for damages, in case they did cause damages.

    But a couple of questions are, how much should this amount be and why? If someone leaves their parents' home and gets a 10-buck-an-hour job and gets an apartment and drives to and from work, but can't yet afford artificially expensive car insurance, it's not just or fair to them to stifle them from driving to and from work.
     
  23. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Seems reasonable. What were you fined for?




    Doesn't seem obvious to me. I think you give the average person too much credit in how much thought they put into their car purchasing decisions.




    What right? You have no right to use public roads and the public has a right to enforce certain rules on those who receive the privilege of using them.
     
  24. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Pretty sure that's an option in California. You just need to post a bond with the state and you're excused from having to provide proof of insurance.
     
  25. Krypt

    Krypt New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again....there are plenty of public transportation options available to you...
     

Share This Page