You said: “I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists.”
Think about what you are promoting. There are states in which Liability Insurance is not Mandatory. You can not impose your State Drivers Requirements upon the Drivers of others States.
Therefore, those drivers have EVERY RIGHT to freely travel through your state, without Insurance, and you can not prosecute them.
Now, think. You are going to prosecute Your State Citizens for Driving on Your State Highways without Insurance, but an Out of Stater can drive your YOur State Highways without Insurance all they like.
Ask yourself. Is that Right?
No, it is not.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam, a Violation of our Right of Innocent and UnConstitutional.
mandatory auto insurance laws eventually cause more problems than they solve. so another law is crreated to solve the new problem that has just arisen from the first law. and so on and so on. that’s the nature of government. there’s nothing an individual can do about it, so just accept it and take advantage of the situation. How? since insurance is mandatory, they will not refuse to sell insurance to even the highest risk drivers like they did forty years ago. pay the big money for the insurance. buy inferior vehicles that are priced significantly below book value. smash them up and collect the book value.
First, I’d like to say to Proffsl that I think his statement about the meaning of “responsibility” is pretty brilliant. I agree with Proffsl but I never thought of it that way.
“RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents is that “Society bears the burden of those that choose to drive without automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. Mandantory insurance laws certainly don’t address that problem.
Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused the damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the guilty driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in any accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting your million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed your right arm instead of your appendix?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty fail to comply, then confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place, such as manslaughter, that already cover such crimes. And most importantly, REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS.
Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning court decisions of the past.
Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in eighteenth century photographs?
I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was and was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and insurance laws.
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit. There were no Federal laws or Federal taxes restricting gun ownership or gambling or drug use.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents ironically is that “Society bears the burden of those choosing to waive automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. I beg these misguided people to demonstrate how mandantory insurance laws solve that problem. They certainly don’t. Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused those injuries and damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the at-fault uninsured driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in ANY accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated for their injuries and damages sustained. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. That is THEFT pure and simple. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting YOUR million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed YOUR right arm instead of an appendix? Small wonder both your Republican and Democratic representatives in government back mandantory insurance laws with equal enthusiasm. Who uses all of that money that the state collects? It now becomes undeniably clear as to just whose interests were really being served when states adopted mandantory insurance laws doesn’t it?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty party fails to comply with that requirement, confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place such as manslaughter presently in place. Most importantly, we need to REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS. Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning the erroneous court decisions of the recent past.
It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and nadantory insurance laws. Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in nineteenth century photographs? I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. Would going back to the justice model of 1776 mean we’d enjoy a utopia? It surely wouldn’t. It’s obvious that a SCARCE FEW of us could wind up with the short end of the stick but under mandantory insurance laws, there’s no doubt that NEARLY ALL of us are receiving the long end.
Proffsl wrote: “RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Clay Rains wrote: “That’s right!”
Often, in support of Mandatory Liability, people would say: “You’ve got to be RESPONSIBLE” (for accidents which haven’t YET (as if they WILL) occured) or “You’ve got to drive RESPONSIBLY”.
Often I hear the phrase: “You need to behave RESPONSIBLY”.
WRONG!!! Instead: “You need to behave RESPECTFULLY”
By behaving RESPECTFULLY, you decrease the likelyhood of being RESPONSIBLE.
Often people will support Mandatory Liability with arguments such as: “If you run your automobile into me, I don’t want to have to pay for the damages.”
Nobody wants to pay for damages they didn’t cause. And, I don’t want to have to pay for damages I didn’t cause. If I haven’t had an accident, where do my Mandatory Liability Premium payments go? They go to pay for damages I didn’t cause!
Using the argument “Nobody should pay for damages they didn’t cause” in support of Mandatory Liability is to say “Virtually EVERYBODY should pay for damages they didn’t cause” !!!
Mandatory Liability forces me to purchase Insurance for the other guy, under the pretense the other guy will purchase Insurance for me. But, as we all know, this isn’t always going to be the case.
And, when this guy runs their automobile into your’s, dispite the fact you purchased insurance for them, you are not covered, and the Insurance company is not liable to pay for any of the damages. You are being forced to pay for something you can never collect on.
Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!
“Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!”
Proffsl,
You know, I never even thought of the uninsured motorist thing! If that doesn’t demonstrate the absurdity of those laws I don’t know what would. Come to think of it, I’m not sure my state isn’t making me do this. That has a real familiar ring to it. I think it may be automatically part of the policy, that is to say you need to have so many thousand dollars worth of uninsured motorist coverage as part of a minimum coverage policy in Missouri. I’m not sure but I’ll look it up.
Proffsl, I’ve always thought mandantory insurance was ridiculous for many reasons but you’ve turned me on to a few things I never even thought of. Your last 3 or 4 posts have made me see this insurance law thing from a complely different angle that affirms my belief even stronger that mandantory insurance is wrong. What I mean to say is that before I was concentrated more the UNFAIRNESS of it
but you’ve opened my eyes a little more to the fact that it is just plain ILLOGICAL.
I remember something in your last post, I think it was, that kind of falls in line with my own belief against these laws. Since this law went into effect in my state (when I was about 17) I always thought it made no sense. It’s kind of like…. “We want to reduce the OFF CHANCE that a scant few will get screwed in a traffic accident, so lets made a law that ENSURES that everyone gets screwed even if they were never in an accident. It boils down to Marxism. It’s like we are all to be responsible for everyone in our “village” as defined by Hitlery Clinton. It’s beginning scare me the more I delve into debating laws like this. Every day I learn that our system of justice in this country has been corrupted and overturned to a worse degree than I’d previously thought.
I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?
“Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!”
Proffsl,
You know, I never even thought of the uninsured motorist thing! If that doesn’t demonstrate the absurdity of those laws I don’t know what would. Come to think of it, I’m not sure my state isn’t making me do this. That has a real familiar ring to it. I think it may be automatically part of the policy, that is to say you need to have so many thousand dollars worth of uninsured motorist coverage as part of a minimum coverage policy in Missouri. I’m not sure but I’ll look it up.
Proffsl, I’ve always thought mandantory insurance was ridiculous for many reasons but you’ve turned me on to a few things I never even thought of. Your last 3 or 4 posts have made me see this insurance law thing from a complely different angle that affirms my belief even stronger that mandantory insurance is wrong. What I mean to say is that before I was concentrated more the UNFAIRNESS of it
but you’ve opened my eyes a little more to the fact that it is just plain ILLOGICAL.
I remember something in your last post, I think it was, that kind of falls in line with my own belief against these laws. Since this law went into effect in my state (when I was about 17) I always thought it made no sense. It’s kind of like…. “We want to reduce the OFF CHANCE that a scant few will get screwed in a traffic accident, so lets made a law that ENSURES that everyone gets screwed even if they were never in an accident. It boils down to Marxism. It’s like we are all to be responsible for everyone in our “village” as defined by Hitlery Clinton. It’s beginning scare me the more I delve into debating laws like this. Every day I learn that our system of justice in this country has been corrupted and overturned to a worse degree than I’d previously thought.
I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
You said: “I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists.”
Think about what you are promoting. There are states in which Liability Insurance is not Mandatory. You can not impose your State Drivers Requirements upon the Drivers of others States.
Therefore, those drivers have EVERY RIGHT to freely travel through your state, without Insurance, and you can not prosecute them.
Now, think. You are going to prosecute Your State Citizens for Driving on Your State Highways without Insurance, but an Out of Stater can drive your YOur State Highways without Insurance all they like.
Ask yourself. Is that Right?
No, it is not.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam, a Violation of our Right of Innocent and UnConstitutional.
mandatory auto insurance laws eventually cause more problems than they solve. so another law is crreated to solve the new problem that has just arisen from the first law. and so on and so on. that’s the nature of government. there’s nothing an individual can do about it, so just accept it and take advantage of the situation. How? since insurance is mandatory, they will not refuse to sell insurance to even the highest risk drivers like they did forty years ago. pay the big money for the insurance. buy inferior vehicles that are priced significantly below book value. smash them up and collect the book value.
Your attitude is disgusting. You say: Things are Wrong. Take advantage of them, and do more wrong things.
NO.
First, I’d like to say to Proffsl that I think his statement about the meaning of “responsibility” is pretty brilliant. I agree with Proffsl but I never thought of it that way.
“RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
That’s right!
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents is that “Society bears the burden of those that choose to drive without automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. Mandantory insurance laws certainly don’t address that problem.
Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused the damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the guilty driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in any accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting your million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed your right arm instead of your appendix?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty fail to comply, then confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place, such as manslaughter, that already cover such crimes. And most importantly, REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS.
Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning court decisions of the past.
Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in eighteenth century photographs?
I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was and was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and insurance laws.
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit. There were no Federal laws or Federal taxes restricting gun ownership or gambling or drug use.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents ironically is that “Society bears the burden of those choosing to waive automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. I beg these misguided people to demonstrate how mandantory insurance laws solve that problem. They certainly don’t. Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused those injuries and damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the at-fault uninsured driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in ANY accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated for their injuries and damages sustained. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. That is THEFT pure and simple. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting YOUR million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed YOUR right arm instead of an appendix? Small wonder both your Republican and Democratic representatives in government back mandantory insurance laws with equal enthusiasm. Who uses all of that money that the state collects? It now becomes undeniably clear as to just whose interests were really being served when states adopted mandantory insurance laws doesn’t it?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty party fails to comply with that requirement, confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place such as manslaughter presently in place. Most importantly, we need to REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS. Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning the erroneous court decisions of the recent past.
It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and nadantory insurance laws. Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in nineteenth century photographs? I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. Would going back to the justice model of 1776 mean we’d enjoy a utopia? It surely wouldn’t. It’s obvious that a SCARCE FEW of us could wind up with the short end of the stick but under mandantory insurance laws, there’s no doubt that NEARLY ALL of us are receiving the long end.
Proffsl wrote: “RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Clay Rains wrote: “That’s right!”
Often, in support of Mandatory Liability, people would say: “You’ve got to be RESPONSIBLE” (for accidents which haven’t YET (as if they WILL) occured) or “You’ve got to drive RESPONSIBLY”.
Often I hear the phrase: “You need to behave RESPONSIBLY”.
WRONG!!! Instead: “You need to behave RESPECTFULLY”
By behaving RESPECTFULLY, you decrease the likelyhood of being RESPONSIBLE.
It pleases me that at least you understand this.
Often people will support Mandatory Liability with arguments such as: “If you run your automobile into me, I don’t want to have to pay for the damages.”
Nobody wants to pay for damages they didn’t cause. And, I don’t want to have to pay for damages I didn’t cause. If I haven’t had an accident, where do my Mandatory Liability Premium payments go? They go to pay for damages I didn’t cause!
Using the argument “Nobody should pay for damages they didn’t cause” in support of Mandatory Liability is to say “Virtually EVERYBODY should pay for damages they didn’t cause” !!!
Mandatory Liability forces me to purchase Insurance for the other guy, under the pretense the other guy will purchase Insurance for me. But, as we all know, this isn’t always going to be the case.
And, when this guy runs their automobile into your’s, dispite the fact you purchased insurance for them, you are not covered, and the Insurance company is not liable to pay for any of the damages. You are being forced to pay for something you can never collect on.
Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!
“Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!”
Proffsl,
You know, I never even thought of the uninsured motorist thing! If that doesn’t demonstrate the absurdity of those laws I don’t know what would. Come to think of it, I’m not sure my state isn’t making me do this. That has a real familiar ring to it. I think it may be automatically part of the policy, that is to say you need to have so many thousand dollars worth of uninsured motorist coverage as part of a minimum coverage policy in Missouri. I’m not sure but I’ll look it up.
Proffsl, I’ve always thought mandantory insurance was ridiculous for many reasons but you’ve turned me on to a few things I never even thought of. Your last 3 or 4 posts have made me see this insurance law thing from a complely different angle that affirms my belief even stronger that mandantory insurance is wrong. What I mean to say is that before I was concentrated more the UNFAIRNESS of it
but you’ve opened my eyes a little more to the fact that it is just plain ILLOGICAL.
I remember something in your last post, I think it was, that kind of falls in line with my own belief against these laws. Since this law went into effect in my state (when I was about 17) I always thought it made no sense. It’s kind of like…. “We want to reduce the OFF CHANCE that a scant few will get screwed in a traffic accident, so lets made a law that ENSURES that everyone gets screwed even if they were never in an accident. It boils down to Marxism. It’s like we are all to be responsible for everyone in our “village” as defined by Hitlery Clinton. It’s beginning scare me the more I delve into debating laws like this. Every day I learn that our system of justice in this country has been corrupted and overturned to a worse degree than I’d previously thought.
I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?
“Many states, realizing not all drivers have purchased insurance for the other guy, Compound this abomination by ALSO FORCING the motorist to purchase Uninsured Motorist Insurance!”
Proffsl,
You know, I never even thought of the uninsured motorist thing! If that doesn’t demonstrate the absurdity of those laws I don’t know what would. Come to think of it, I’m not sure my state isn’t making me do this. That has a real familiar ring to it. I think it may be automatically part of the policy, that is to say you need to have so many thousand dollars worth of uninsured motorist coverage as part of a minimum coverage policy in Missouri. I’m not sure but I’ll look it up.
Proffsl, I’ve always thought mandantory insurance was ridiculous for many reasons but you’ve turned me on to a few things I never even thought of. Your last 3 or 4 posts have made me see this insurance law thing from a complely different angle that affirms my belief even stronger that mandantory insurance is wrong. What I mean to say is that before I was concentrated more the UNFAIRNESS of it
but you’ve opened my eyes a little more to the fact that it is just plain ILLOGICAL.
I remember something in your last post, I think it was, that kind of falls in line with my own belief against these laws. Since this law went into effect in my state (when I was about 17) I always thought it made no sense. It’s kind of like…. “We want to reduce the OFF CHANCE that a scant few will get screwed in a traffic accident, so lets made a law that ENSURES that everyone gets screwed even if they were never in an accident. It boils down to Marxism. It’s like we are all to be responsible for everyone in our “village” as defined by Hitlery Clinton. It’s beginning scare me the more I delve into debating laws like this. Every day I learn that our system of justice in this country has been corrupted and overturned to a worse degree than I’d previously thought.
I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?