“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?
Clay Rains wrote: “I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?”
I don’t like ANY Law that prosecutes ANYTHING other than the Violation of another’s Rights.
The intended purpose of Laws is to secure our Rights. The way this security of our Rights is accomplished is by the prosecution of any behavior which is in violation of another’s Rights without their Consent.
Given our Right to Innocent until Proven Guilty, we have a Right to Everything which isn’t in Violation of another’s Rights.
If Innocence were our ONLY Right, we could do anything EXCEPT prevent another from doing anything without their Consent.
But, we also have the Right to Life. Therefore, we can do anything except prevent another from doing anything except Murder, without their Consent.
We also have the Right to Property. Therefore, we can do anything except prevent another from doing anything except Murder or Theft, without their Consent.
etc, etc,,,
So, although my Life has been saved once by Seat belts, I very much oppose seat belt laws.
EXCEPT, for parents who fail to properly secure their minor aged children in vehicles, as the Child does have a Right to Life.
One problem being overlooked here is that the indigents are the ones driving without insurance. If an indigent has to pay 500$ for auto insurance, he will probably not have money for food for the month, and he can go on food stamps and get the 500$ back.
A food stamp survey done in Billings, MT at my request thrus the Montana DPHHS indicated that over the last 20 years in Montana 30,000 food stamp applicants would have listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps (12 of the 96 food stamp applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps.)
I also did an extensive food stamp study of food stamp skyrockets linked to auto insurance laws (Santa Fe County, New Mexico had a food stamp skyrocket in its January and February food stamp nrs of 1985 and 1986 due to the 1984 New Mexico auto insurance law (New Mexico renewed its registrations in January and february).
This is just one example. So research should be done to determine the additional nrs on food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance laws before we go any further. (I myself collected 3,000$ of food stamps due to Montana\’s October 1 1987 law that mandated a 250$ minimum fine for no insurance. I was living on pancakes three times a day and the state was going to take that away and force me to pay a 250$ fine and buy 300$ of insurance. I went on food stamps for 3 years in case I was arrested for no insurance.)
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Drivers licenses are really only for people acting in commerace , business
If some one does not have auto insurance thats ok . they might not ever get in a accident, insurance is paying for something that has not happened , althought their is a possibility . arresting someone for no insurance when nothing has accured is wrong , NO HARM NO FOUL. if an accident happens and a person is not insured it is a civil matter for damages
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.
“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?
Clay Rains wrote: “I’m going to venture that you don’t like seat belt laws either?”
I don’t like ANY Law that prosecutes ANYTHING other than the Violation of another’s Rights.
The intended purpose of Laws is to secure our Rights. The way this security of our Rights is accomplished is by the prosecution of any behavior which is in violation of another’s Rights without their Consent.
Given our Right to Innocent until Proven Guilty, we have a Right to Everything which isn’t in Violation of another’s Rights.
If Innocence were our ONLY Right, we could do anything EXCEPT prevent another from doing anything without their Consent.
But, we also have the Right to Life. Therefore, we can do anything except prevent another from doing anything except Murder, without their Consent.
We also have the Right to Property. Therefore, we can do anything except prevent another from doing anything except Murder or Theft, without their Consent.
etc, etc,,,
So, although my Life has been saved once by Seat belts, I very much oppose seat belt laws.
EXCEPT, for parents who fail to properly secure their minor aged children in vehicles, as the Child does have a Right to Life.
One problem being overlooked here is that the indigents are the ones driving without insurance. If an indigent has to pay 500$ for auto insurance, he will probably not have money for food for the month, and he can go on food stamps and get the 500$ back.
A food stamp survey done in Billings, MT at my request thrus the Montana DPHHS indicated that over the last 20 years in Montana 30,000 food stamp applicants would have listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps (12 of the 96 food stamp applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps.)
I also did an extensive food stamp study of food stamp skyrockets linked to auto insurance laws (Santa Fe County, New Mexico had a food stamp skyrocket in its January and February food stamp nrs of 1985 and 1986 due to the 1984 New Mexico auto insurance law (New Mexico renewed its registrations in January and february).
This is just one example. So research should be done to determine the additional nrs on food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance laws before we go any further. (I myself collected 3,000$ of food stamps due to Montana\’s October 1 1987 law that mandated a 250$ minimum fine for no insurance. I was living on pancakes three times a day and the state was going to take that away and force me to pay a 250$ fine and buy 300$ of insurance. I went on food stamps for 3 years in case I was arrested for no insurance.)
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Drivers licenses are really only for people acting in commerace , business
If some one does not have auto insurance thats ok . they might not ever get in a accident, insurance is paying for something that has not happened , althought their is a possibility . arresting someone for no insurance when nothing has accured is wrong , NO HARM NO FOUL. if an accident happens and a person is not insured it is a civil matter for damages