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.
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.
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.Stupid thread, really, really stupid! JMHO
If you can fine me for car damages that I never caused, I can fine you for that.
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.
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.
The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.