Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

I hear ya, but gotta remember this. If you injure someone in an accident, it is your responsibility to bring that person(s) back to a whole state. In other words, if your at fault, you should make it right.

If on the other hand, you can show you have the financial means to do so “without” insurance...then no, you should not be forced to purchase insurance.


56 posted on 05/19/2015 7:40:35 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: servantboy777
I hear ya, but gotta remember this. If you injure someone in an accident, it is your responsibility to bring that person(s) back to a whole state. In other words, if your at fault, you should make it right.

I wish to point out that this is impossible. That by choosing to drive on a road, you are accepting the risk that you could be maimed or killed. There is no such thing as making someone "whole" who is maimed or killed. It is a false concept.

I believe motor law should work like all other law. If you are culpable, you should pay to the extent you are culpable if you are able.

If a man cuts down a tree and it falls on his neighbor, he should have to pay for damages/injuries. The state should not have a law requiring him to have insurance for the possibility he might accidentally injure someone else. This is a form of prior restraint, i.e. holding someone accountable for an offense not yet committed.

If on the other hand, you can show you have the financial means to do so “without” insurance...then no, you should not be forced to purchase insurance.

Why should driving laws use a different set of rules than ordinary civil law? What you suggest would be a step in the right direction, but what would be most appropriate is if the state stayed within their mandate and butted out of any involvement with insurance.

It is not the business of the state to compel patronage to private interests. At the very least, if the state is going to compel insurance, the State should be the one to supply and administrate it. I personally think there should be a wall between the power of the state and the interests of private entities.

If Insurance is a state interest, the state should implement it and collect the money and pay the claims.

I don't believe it is a legitimate state interest, and I don't believe the state should act as an enforcing agent for the profit of private interests.

61 posted on 05/19/2015 7:55:33 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson