Republicans are stupid thieves.

[EricF]

You are simply not comprehending my point(s).

I mention "Infinite loss" and you talk about "Flood Insurance"? You seem to only understand the concept of "Loss" in terms of money. Most things which are important to people are not redeemable in dollars.
How much money would you sell your head for?

You need to accept that our society has placed the potential for a dollar value on EVERYTHING. That is determined by government, or the courts.

[Diogenes]

Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.

As I understand it our Congress is already working on such a plan. Of course Madam "Parliament of Whores" Pelosi says we can't find out what the real plan is unless it passes.

The thought occurs to me, What if Department stores created a policy that you must have insurance to come into our stores in case you break something.

I'm pretty sure the courts would strike it down as Prejudicial.

How about not allowing people into medical facilities in case they infect others with something? (Unless of course they have insurance to cover OTHER people.)

How about telling black people they can't use the swimming pool because the grease in their hair contaminates the water? (This really happened here in the 1960s.)

How many other examples of this "Before the Fact." thinking must I cite before comprehension dawns with some people?

[Diogenes]

The problem with this theory requires the insertion of a Jerk. Accidents NOT caused by jerks leave you in the same situation as a Jerk that can't pay you anyway.

The flaw in this thinking is the same flaw in the Minimum wage thinking.

"People should make at LEAST X much money." Meaning, unless you can't make "X" amount of money, you can't work at all. Some people simply can't make "X" amount of money.

Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.

Pretty soon it's gonna be "People who can't do at least "X" amount of Usefulness shouldn't waste oxygen that more productive people might use.

The world of no limits that you yearn for exists. Might I suggest you move to Somalia?

You obviously have mistaken me for a Libertarian. I am most assuredly not. (I am a Hyper Conservative Right Winged Extremist! ) I believe in the rule of Law, but I also believe that the law should be reasonable and just.

Depriving Poor people the means to get too and from work, and indeed, the protection of an automobile (as well as ownership of same) is simply wrong. The better off among us can either tolerate the poor, or stay off the roads themselves.

[Diogenes]

You are simply not comprehending my point(s).

I mention "Infinite loss" and you talk about "Flood Insurance"? You seem to only understand the concept of "Loss" in terms of money. Most things which are important to people are not redeemable in dollars.
How much money would you sell your head for?

You need to accept that our society has placed the potential for a dollar value on EVERYTHING. That is determined by government, or the courts.

Fine. How much for your head? If it's too much, perhaps I can buy some fingers?

Name a Price, or by your refusal, you D@mn "Society's" Opinion and your own argument to h3ll !

I DON'T accept the premise that Society, or the law, or anyone else, can assert a dollar value for my body parts. If you do, then tell me what your body parts are worth to you.

[seedload]

The first post in the thread explains it. Republicans in the Oklahoma State house wants to seize people's cars if they are found to be driving without insurance.

This is an act of theft in my mind, and it is an example where the Republicans are abetting legalized thievery.

Law - you can't drive without insurance.
Punishment - your car gets impounded if you do.

How is this theft? It takes and act by you to incur the punishment/fine of having your car impounded? Is impounding cars for parking violations theft? Is fining someone for doing something illegal a theft? Is impounding cars for drug trafficing theft? Heck, for drug stuff, your car isn't even impounded, it is taken. I fail to see theft. Crime and punishment. Well within the juristiction of state governments.

[EricF]

You are simply not comprehending my point(s).

I mention "Infinite loss" and you talk about "Flood Insurance"? You seem to only understand the concept of "Loss" in terms of money. Most things which are important to people are not redeemable in dollars.
How much money would you sell your head for?

You need to accept that our society has placed the potential for a dollar value on EVERYTHING. That is determined by government, or the courts.

Fine. How much for your head? If it's too much, perhaps I can buy some fingers?

Name a Price, or by your refusal, you D@mn "Society's" Opinion and your own argument to h3ll !

I DON'T accept the premise that Society, or the law, or anyone else, can assert a dollar value for my body parts. If you do, then tell me what your body parts are worth to you.

Hyperbole.

[Carl White]

This law should only apply where public transit is a reasonable (repeat, reasonable) alternative.

[Skipjack]

Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.

Well, I got news for you. Driving a car costs lots of money, even without the insurance. You have to pay for the car, first of all. Unless you want to require everyone to get a car for free (are you a commie?). Gasoline costs money, unless you require everyone to get their gasoline fro free? Again, are you a commie?
Inspections cause money. I dont know about the US, but past a certain age, cars are required to be inspected every year. If there are flaws that make the car fail the inspection, you have to repair the flaws. Otherwise, you dont get a plaque and without a plaque you are not allowed to drive. Why? Because it endangers other people if you bring a piece of junk on the road. Certain savety standards have to be met. Again this costs money, it can actually cost you quite a lot more money than the fracking insurance costs you every year. The inspection allone costs 50 Euros and then you have not repaired anything yet that might need repairs.
Again, do you want people to get that inspection for free? Or do you think it is OK for cars that are not save to be on the road?

Personally I think you are just upset about something here and are being stubborn and not willing to get of your point. It is completely logical and clear why insurance is needed. And please stop talking about the value of peoples lives here. What if someone just gets injured? That pain does have a value. There are precedence cases for that, even in the US. Lots of lawyers make good money with that. It is usually the insurance companies that end up paying, not the owner of the vehicle. That is good too, because most people would not earn enough in a lifetime to pay that.
That is why many people willingly pay for insurance. They are willing to give away a tiny bit of money each month, to be covered in case something happens that would cost them much, much more.

[KitemanSA]

The reality *I'M* trying to acquaint everyone with is the reality that Driving represents a risk of loss that CANNOT be covered by insurance.

And a risk of cost burden that CAN.

I value my life, the lives of my loved ones and my bodily integrity more than money. So does everyone else.

Non-sequitur.

[Diogenes]

The first post in the thread explains it. Republicans in the Oklahoma State house wants to seize people's cars if they are found to be driving without insurance.

This is an act of theft in my mind, and it is an example where the Republicans are abetting legalized thievery.

Law - you can't drive without insurance.
Punishment - your car gets impounded if you do.

How is this theft? It takes and act by you to incur the punishment/fine of having your car impounded? Is impounding cars for parking violations theft? Is fining someone for doing something illegal a theft? Is impounding cars for drug trafficing theft? Heck, for drug stuff, your car isn't even impounded, it is taken. I fail to see theft. Crime and punishment. Well within the juristiction of state governments.

It is THEFT because it does not belong to them.

It is NOT in punishment of a crime, it is retaliation for disobeying the Authorities commanding you to forfeit your right to travel the public roads.

The Slave which flees slavery is not committing the "Crime" of stealing property from his master, because the LAW which calls him "property" is wrong, and a violation of human rights.

Just so is the theory that you do not have a right to travel the public roads. It is only recently that people have asserted that "Only the financially well off may have the state's permission to travel the public roads."

I'll have none of it, and neither should any one else.

[Diogenes]

You need to accept that our society has placed the potential for a dollar value on EVERYTHING. That is determined by government, or the courts.

Fine. How much for your head? If it's too much, perhaps I can buy some fingers?

Name a Price, or by your refusal, you D@mn "Society's" Opinion and your own argument to h3ll !

I DON'T accept the premise that Society, or the law, or anyone else, can assert a dollar value for my body parts. If you do, then tell me what your body parts are worth to you.

Hyperbole.

Unassailable argument.

[Diogenes]

This law should only apply where public transit is a reasonable (repeat, reasonable) alternative.

This argument is more reasonable, but it is akin to a gilded cage. It still accepts the premise that the state can deny the people the right to use the public ways.

1.
My First argument is that the People have a very basic and ancient right to use the roads, and the desire to force the undesirables off the roads is a fairly recent (historically) violation of that right. People have accepted it because it has been "crept" up on us.

2.
My Second argument is that such a law Punishes a person for an offense that he MIGHT commit. It is a violation of a very basic principle of Law that you cannot be accused or punished of something "Before the fact."

3.
My Third argument is that People risk their lives and everything they hold dear to drive upon the roads. If they are willing to risk their necks then they can risk their pocket books. Rocks, trees and animals can't pay them anything.

4.
My Fourth argument is It is a dangerous precedent to allow the state to put conditions on a very important right. It lets the camel's nose into the tent for more serious violations.

5.
My Fifth argument is that the state bears responsibility for any injuries resulting from people taking alternate means of transportation because the safer means (driving their own car.) was denied to them.

If they are killed because they were forced to ride a bicycle or motorcycle, then the state is partially to blame. If they are killed by a mugger while walking, the state is partially to blame. If they cannot work because they cannot get to their job, the state is partially to blame.

6.
My Sixth argument is one of Unfunded Mandates. If the State feels it necessary to eliminate financial risk to other drivers, the STATE should pay for it.

7.
My Seventh argument is the introduction of non-governmental third parties by state mandate. Why does the state force patronage to private companies? If it is a public service, then it should be performed by the Agent of the Public. The STATE should be the ONLY agency permitted to Insure for a State required purpose.


I have further arguments, but I haven't seen anyone make a dent in any of my first seven arguments, so that's enough for now.

[Diogenes]

Think about it. "People shouldn't drive unless they pay "X" amount of money. Meaning people who can't pay "X" amount of money simply can't drive.

Well, I got news for you. Driving a car costs lots of money, even without the insurance. You have to pay for the car, first of all. Unless you want to require everyone to get a car for free (are you a commie?). Gasoline costs money, unless you require everyone to get their gasoline fro free? Again, are you a commie?
Inspections cause money. I dont know about the US, but past a certain age, cars are required to be inspected every year. If there are flaws that make the car fail the inspection, you have to repair the flaws. Otherwise, you dont get a plaque and without a plaque you are not allowed to drive. Why? Because it endangers other people if you bring a piece of junk on the road. Certain savety standards have to be met. Again this costs money, it can actually cost you quite a lot more money than the fracking insurance costs you every year. The inspection allone costs 50 Euros and then you have not repaired anything yet that might need repairs.
Again, do you want people to get that inspection for free? Or do you think it is OK for cars that are not save to be on the road?

The argument that the state has an obligation to protect the public from someone doing something dangerous is valid. Occasional inspections of vehicles for legitimate safety reasons is within the state's mandate and the framework of the individual's obligation to his fellow citizens. (even though this state suspended inspections about 10 years ago, so apparently it wasn't that much of a problem.)

The argument that the State can force you to pay for something you haven't done yet, is just wrong.

Personally I think you are just upset about something here and are being stubborn and not willing to get of your point. It is completely logical and clear why insurance is needed. And please stop talking about the value of peoples lives here.

I'm not talking about the value of people's lives. I'm pointing out that lives =/= $.
People risk lives, but get upset about risking Dollars?

What if someone just gets injured? That pain does have a value. There are precedence cases for that, even in the US. Lots of lawyers make good money with that.

Oh yes. Let us use Lawyers as our moral compass.

It is usually the insurance companies that end up paying, not the owner of the vehicle.

Are you implying that because it's insurance companies, it's okay then?

That is good too, because most people would not earn enough in a lifetime to pay that.

You are making my point again. The value of lives is so great that a lifetime of earning can't pay for them!

That is why many people willingly pay for insurance. They are willing to give away a tiny bit of money each month, to be covered in case something happens that would cost them much, much more.

Then why don't they pay that tiny bit of money each month to protect themselves from the danger that they might get hit by someone with no money if that worries them so much?

Better that than to deny other people a basic human right.

[Diogenes]

And a risk of cost burden that CAN.

I value my life, the lives of my loved ones and my bodily integrity more than money. So does everyone else.

Non-sequitur.

What do you mean "it does not follow" ?

This is simple.

1. People value their lives and loved ones more than their cash and property.

2.If people are willing to risk their lives and their loved ones, then they ought to be willing to risk their cash and property.



The proof of this is quite simple. People were driving for half a century before the State forced insurance on everyone. If you count horses and wagons, people were driving for thousands of years before the state forced Insurance on them.

Obviously the thought of having accidents with people who couldn't pay them didn't deter them from traveling. They simply accepted it as a risk of using the road, just as they currently accept the risk of losing their life.

[KitemanSA]

I value my life, the lives of my loved ones and my bodily integrity more than money. So does everyone else.

Non-sequitur.

What do you mean "it does not follow" ?

The fact that you value your life more than money has no bearing on the fact that insurance can assure that people have the where-with-all to compensate the finanical results of their bad actions.