Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) If You Support Mandatory Insurance... (Read 6644 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8847
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #100 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:12pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:22pm:
I have never caused an accident in my life. I was, however, hit by an uninsured driver when I was 19, my car was totaled, and nothing was done to make me whole after those losses.

From where I sit, insurance exists to make money, like any other business, not protect people from those losses, because it doesn't protect people from those losses.

You're building a case on the idea that causing an accident and not being able to pay shouldn't be allowed to happen, but it is allowed to happen


Not what I said.  I said if you are going to drive legally on roads, you should provide minimum protection for other drivers from you on ... government ... roads.  You're turning that around into that I'm demanding you protect yourself from others, which is a strawman with a completely different meaning.

So for uninsured drivers, it's your choice what insurance to buy.  Apparently you choice not to buy it.  But that you draw a parallel between that you should be protected from lawbreakers for free because you're required to protect others from you is bogus.

When the people ceded the power to build roads to the government, we also ceded the power to regulate them.  I don't want eight year olds, the blind, uninsured drivers, horse and buggies, crates with engines or other hazards on the roads.  You can't separate them and say some are libertarian issues and some aren't and make any sort of consistent argument.

You want to drive with your own rules?  I'm good with that, do it on your own land
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8847
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #101 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:15pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:22pm:
I didn't say the two were equivalent. There's a connection, but they're not equivalent


Government makes rules on government roads.  Government controls the price your private business charges.  No, there is no connection

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:22pm:
Obviously. My point is simply that because the government has the power to make people buy insurance, and not the power to control prices for that effect, the insurance companies make more than they would if the government did not force people to buy insurance.


You can't take a gun into a government building, you can't sit and do your job sitting at the mayor's desk, you can't drive on government roads without insurance.  Duh.

And as I said, I do agree with you we should have a self insurance option.  Investment firms could easily set those up.
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50032
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #102 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:03pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:12pm:
I don't want eight year olds, the blind, uninsured drivers, horse and buggies, crates with engines or other hazards on the roads.
Best not move to Amish country kaz.

I'm pretty sure the biggest hazards on the roads today are people texting or accessing their magic devices while driving.

I've never been worried about blind drivers or eight year olds and won't start now.

My state makes me buy insurance to cover uninsured drivers, so I don't worry about them either.

What do you mean by "crates with engines"?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11798
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #103 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:44pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:12pm:
Not what I said.  I said if you are going to drive legally on roads, you should provide minimum protection for other drivers from you on ... government ... roads.  You're turning that around into that I'm demanding you protect yourself from others, which is a strawman with a completely different meaning.


You absolutely did say that I should have to pay to protect everyone else in case I cause an accident.

I pointed out that forcing everyone to buy insurance doesn't do that. The people who will actually cause accidents just go uninsured. Then, when they hit someone, it's "oh well they were uninsured."

kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:12pm:
So for uninsured drivers, it's your choice what insurance to buy.  Apparently you choice not to buy it.  But that you draw a parallel between that you should be protected from lawbreakers for free because you're required to protect others from you is bogus.


Alright. No one should be protected from lawbreakers for free. Instead of uninsured drivers, the lawbreakers are people who cause accidents.

Just cross out "not buying insurance" in the law and put "harming someone in an accident you caused".

Then it will be everyone's choice whether they protect themselves from the uninsured liabilities of others or not.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8847
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #104 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:19pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:44pm:
You absolutely did say that I should have to pay to protect everyone else in case I cause an accident


Yes, that's what I said I said

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:44pm:
I pointed out that forcing everyone to buy insurance doesn't do that. The people who will actually cause accidents just go uninsured. Then, when they hit someone, it's "oh well they were uninsured."


And you turned it around again to what I didn't say, that to drive legally ... on government roads ...  you need to protect yourself from others.  Strawman.  I said you need to protect other legal drivers from you.

What you are arguing is that people will do things illegally if you don't.  No shit.  There is no point in that argument.  You will be protected from other legal drivers.  You won't be protected from illegal drivers unless you buy your own insurance for that.  That's different than going into a legal store that follows the law and an illegal store that doesn't.

Your argument is like that you shouldn't have to sell Prado bags legally because some people sell them illegally.  It's a stupid argument


The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:44pm:
Alright. No one should be protected from lawbreakers for free. Instead of uninsured drivers, the lawbreakers are people who cause accidents.

Just cross out "not buying insurance" in the law and put "harming someone in an accident you caused".

Then it will be everyone's choice whether they protect themselves from the uninsured liabilities of others or not.


That would be one choice that government can make on roads it built and regulates.  Or they could require you to buy insurance to drive on government roads.  They choice the latter
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11798
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #105 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:33pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:19pm:
And you turned it around again to what I didn't say, that to drive legally ... on government roads ...  you need to protect yourself from others.  Strawman.  I said you need to protect other legal drivers from you.


What I observed is that you're okay with unfunded liabilities sometimes. I can choose to protect myself, or not, from uninsured drivers.

Why aren't you fine with the idea that I can choose to protect myself, or not, from accident-causing drivers?

Are you saying causing an accident isn't breaking the law?

kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:19pm:
That would be one choice that government can make on roads it built and regulates.  Or they could require you to buy insurance to drive on government roads.  They choice the latter


Would it be more fair if everyone who pays taxes for those roads got to vote on that choice?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8847
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #106 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 8:25pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:33pm:
What I observed is that you're okay with unfunded liabilities sometimes. I can choose to protect myself, or not, from uninsured drivers


You observed wrong.  I said that with ceding the power to build roads to government goes with regulating their use.  Note you refuse to directly address that point.

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:33pm:
Why aren't you fine with the idea that I can choose to protect myself, or not, from accident-causing drivers?


Strawman.  I said to drive on government roads they require you to protect other drivers from you.  No matter how often repeated, a lie is still a lie

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:33pm:
Are you saying causing an accident isn't breaking the law?


It may be or it may not be.  Your point?

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:33pm:
Would it be more fair if everyone who pays taxes for those roads got to vote on that choice?


Fair has nothing to do with government.  This doesn't address anything we're discussing.  If you want to be a democracy (we aren't one) that's fine, argue for it.  But it has nothing to do with government has the right to regulate the roads or it doesn't.  I say it does, you are vague and constantly contradict yourself.

Again, address my argument, you have so far not done so.  So far you are just arguing transactionally, which is why you can so easily contradict yourself.

Can government regulate the roads the people authorized them to build?
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11798
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #107 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 8:25pm:
You observed wrong.  I said that with ceding the power to build roads to government goes with regulating their use.  Note you refuse to directly address that point.


I already conceded that point. You said the government was within their rights to require insurance. I agreed. (But I asked if it would be more fair to have people who pay for roads in taxes vote on whether insurance should be mandatory rather than the government just make the choice, and you said fairness didn't matter.)

But when you talked about why the government requires insurance, you said I should have to protect other drivers from me, in case I cause an accident. You structured that as a need that must be met at all costs.

kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:08pm:
If you think insurance is expensive, that's a good testament to why you should have it.  If you cause harm, you obviously can't pay for it.  Insurance protects us on government roads from people like you.


Why, then, is it alright that other drivers cause accidents and it's up to me whether I should insure against it or not?

You said it was different because people not buying insurance were breaking the law, and I shouldn't be protected against lawbreakers for free. I pointed out that ramming your car into the back of another person's car and destroying it is already breaking the law.

So we need a second law (mandatory insurance) in case I break the first law (destroying another person's car or life).

But people who break the second law and just go without insurance? Well, no law needed against that. Just let the victim suffer, then, unless he chooses to insure against it with his own money.

Why not just let the victim suffer unless he insures against it at the first stage instead of the second?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 50032
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #108 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 7:25am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm:
I already conceded that point. You said the government was within their rights to require insurance. I agreed. (But I asked if it would be more fair to have people who pay for roads in taxes vote on whether insurance should be mandatory rather than the government just make the choice, and you said fairness didn't matter.)

But when you talked about why the government requires insurance, you said I should have to protect other drivers from me, in case I cause an accident. You structured that as a need that must be met at all costs.


Why, then, is it alright that other drivers cause accidents and it's up to me whether I should insure against it or not?

You said it was different because people not buying insurance were breaking the law, and I shouldn't be protected against lawbreakers for free. I pointed out that ramming your car into the back of another person's car and destroying it is already breaking the law.

So we need a second law (mandatory insurance) in case I break the first law (destroying another person's car or life).

But people who break the second law and just go without insurance? Well, no law needed against that. Just let the victim suffer, then, unless he chooses to insure against it with his own money.

Why not just let the victim suffer unless he insures against it at the first stage instead of the second?
Governments don't have rights and it's a bad idea to give them the power to tell you what you must do.

The main idea of buying insurance is to protect yourself. If you have an accident that causes serious harm to someone else or does extensive damage to their property, you insure yourself against the potential loss of all of your property in compensating the person (people) you have harmed.

Protecting your self against a loss caused to you by someone else who is incapable of making restitution for the harm they cause to you or your property is a secondary purpose of insurance.

In either case, it should be entirely up to the individual to decide.

  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 8847
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Reply #109 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 8:01am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm:
I already conceded that point. You said the government was within their rights to require insurance. I agreed


I didn't see you straight out say that, but fair enough.  You clearly said it here

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm:
(But I asked if it would be more fair to have people who pay for roads in taxes vote on whether insurance should be mandatory rather than the government just make the choice, and you said fairness didn't matter.)


Another lie.

kaz:  "Fair has nothing to do with government"

Opposition:  "You said fairness didn't matter"

That's a whopper of a lie.  It's not even hyperbole, it's just a flat out lie.  You equate fairness with government?  If I say government isn't in charge of fairness, I'm saying "fairness didn't matter?"  That's sick


The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm:
But when you talked about why the government requires insurance, you said I should have to protect other drivers from me, in case I cause an accident. You structured that as a need that must be met at all costs.


Why, then, is it alright that other drivers cause accidents and it's up to me whether I should insure against it or not?


Legal drivers are required to have insurance to protect you as well.  I mean duh.  Your question doesn't even make sense.  If someone drives illegally, they are ... wait for it ... driving illegally.  I don't even understand what you think you're asking me.   But kaz, why don't illegal drivers have to buy insurance?  They do, they are driving ... illegally ...

The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 9:37pm:
You said it was different because people not buying insurance were breaking the law, and I shouldn't be protected against lawbreakers for free. I pointed out that ramming your car into the back of another person's car and destroying it is already breaking the law.

So we need a second law (mandatory insurance) in case I break the first law (destroying another person's car or life).

But people who break the second law and just go without insurance? Well, no law needed against that. Just let the victim suffer, then, unless he chooses to insure against it with his own money.

Why not just let the victim suffer unless he insures against it at the first stage instead of the second?


This is just drivel.  Car accidents are not breaking the law in most cases. 

If someone "rams" their car intentionally to you, they also assaulted.

So we have:

1)  Legal drivers need to have insurance to protect you

2)  If someone drives illegally, you can sue them in civil court and the police can prosecute them if they committed a crime

3)  We are left with illegal drivers with no assets.  If you want to be protected from them for "free," who do you propose provides you with that coverage?

Do you want to be protected from being robbed for free too?  Do you want to be protected from your house being broken into for "free?"  Do you want to be protected from your house being burned down from an arsonist for "free?"

I don't know what you're asking me, you need to go back to square one and think it through and explain the question coherently
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 28
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › If You Support Mandatory Insurance...
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy