Republicans are stupid thieves.

[MSimon]

Back to reality. What will you do if you are injured by some one (who despite laws) who has no insurance?

Happens all the time.

Wouldn't the availability of uninsured motorist coverage be a better deal for all who care than pretending to force poor people off the road?

If you want to protect YOUR property YOU buy insurance.

It seems like a simple enough proposition.

[vankirkc]

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.

So you're saying that poor people can't avail themselves of public transportation? Seems odd, since public transport is normally much cheaper than car ownership, even after you factor out the cost of insurance.

[Skipjack]

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?

Because you would be requrired to keep track of all the weird stuff people can come up with that might injure you. So you can update your coverage. And when you are insured against everything (which would cost a lot of money), then someone comes up with another new way to kill you and YOU have to pay more insurance because HE thinks he has to fly arround with a jetpack. Nowadays, the jetpack owner is required to get an insurance (I am pretty sure the FAA requires insurance for operators of flying machines).
Practically forcing everyone else to pay so YOU dont have to walk, is arrogant!
You can still use the road for free, just not with a car. Walk or ride a bike! Period!

Further, there are some insurances that you can have against incapacitation from work and all that. I do have one, it paid off when I had a heart attack. I also have an accident insurance. I have never used it, but it can pay off to have one.
Again the problem with insuring my car against somebody else damaging it, would be that my insurance rates go up, every time some idiot hits my car. I dont think that this is very practical.
As I said, the hight of coverage in the US seems very low to me. I guess that this is why it is so much cheaper. Insurance companies in the US must be doing really well.

[Skipjack]

Seems odd, since public transport is normally much cheaper than car ownership, even after you factor out the cost of insurance.

That really depends on where you live and where you want to go. Here in Graz, it is usually much cheaper to use the public transport. There may be some rare circumstances when using a car is cheaper though.

[MSimon]

Seems odd, since public transport is normally much cheaper than car ownership, even after you factor out the cost of insurance.

That really depends on where you live and where you want to go. Here in Graz, it is usually much cheaper to use the public transport. There may be some rare circumstances when using a car is cheaper though.

Public transportation can be cheaper. But if service is infrequent...

Most of the "is cheaper" calculations place no value on the time of the public transport user.

[seedload]

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."

You can use a horse and buggy on most public roads. You can go whereever you want. Travel away. There are roads that will get you there. My kid can get anywhere he wants on his moped. The insurance for it is 70 bucks a year. Not only is he poor, but he is only 15. He rides his moped to work.

You said "only recently". I will concede that the horse and buggy laws were updated a smidge to cover the act of hurling yourself about at many times the speed of a falloping horse while dragging a few tons of deadly shinny metal inertia with you.

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

LOL, "you'll have none of it". That's a good one.

[Helius]

My safety, convenience, preferences, and actualizations are important, yours, not so much. We need new rules to stop the overindulgence of the masses. Society just can't afford it anymore.

[Skipjack]

Public transportation can be cheaper. But if service is infrequent...

It is frequent enough for my wife to make it to work on time every day for more than a year now. She is always taking an earlier street-car, in case something is wrong with the service, though. If something goes wrong and a street- car breaks down, they have a replacement bus service within 10 to 15 minutes usually. That is the way it is here, not sure about the relyability in the US.
A year ticket costs 250 Euros or so. Much less than the gas and parking permits for the car would be. Besides, cars cant go all the way into the historic inner city, but the streetcars do.

[MSimon]

My safety, convenience, preferences, and actualizations are important, yours, not so much. We need new rules to stop the overindulgence of the masses. Society just can't afford it anymore.

I think a police state could fix that quite well. We could put chips in all autos and people would not be allowed to travel without police permission. That will fix it.

Of course those with property to protect could just insure it.

[Skipjack]

Back to reality. What will you do if you are injured by some one (who despite laws) who has no insurance?

Happens all the time.

Yes it does happen a lot. Then the person at fault has to pay out of their own pocket. If they cant do that, then there might be other consequences. He will most likely go to prison for not having insurance and causing and accident. Not sure whether that was worth saving the few bucks.

[MSimon]

Public transportation can be cheaper. But if service is infrequent...

It is frequent enough for my wife to make it to work on time every day for more than a year now. She is always taking an earlier street-car, in case something is wrong with the service, though. If something goes wrong and a street- car breaks down, they have a replacement bus service within 10 to 15 minutes usually. That is the way it is here, not sure about the relyability in the US.
A year ticket costs 250 Euros or so. Much less than the gas and parking permits for the car would be. Besides, cars cant go all the way into the historic inner city, but the streetcars do.

Good thing her time doesn't have much value. But don't tell her that.

And of course street cars are not really historic. Unless they are horse drawn. Those newfangled electric jobs are unnatural.

And then there are the places where service is infrequent.

I know. We can have internal passports and force everyone who is not a Party member to live in cities or designated villages when they are needed close by to support Party members.

The idea of the right to use the public roads is absurd. With the proper planning we can do away with it.

[MSimon]

Back to reality. What will you do if you are injured by some one (who despite laws) who has no insurance?

Happens all the time.

Yes it does happen a lot. Then the person at fault has to pay out of their own pocket. If they cant do that, then there might be other consequences. He will most likely go to prison for not having insurance and causing and accident. Not sure whether that was worth saving the few bucks.

And if he has no dollars a debtors prison is definitely the answer.

Of course those with property to protect could always insure themselves and then there is no problem.

Or we can mandate that unless you have enough property you are not allowed to own your own conveyance.

[Skipjack]

Good thing her time doesn't have much value. But don't tell her that.

Actually it does have a lot of value. The 10 minutes she has to take the streetcar earlier, are nothing compared to the time she would spend looking for a parking space, then going and buying a permit, etc.
Parking is rare in the inner city.

And of course street cars are not really historic. Unless they are horse drawn. Those newfangled electric jobs are unnatural.

Of course they are not. I have never said that either. The inner city is historic though. Streetcars are electric and blow less particles and gases into the air, that could harm the historic buildings (some going back to the middle ages). Plus the streets are narrow, so getting a lot of cars through them is not really working either.

And then there are the places where service is infrequent.

In the US maybe, not here. The plans are hanging out at every station and they are pretty precise.

[Skipjack]

And if he has no dollars a debtors prison is definitely the answer.

Of course those with property to protect could always insure themselves and then there is no problem.

Or we can mandate that unless you have enough property you are not allowed to own your own conveyance.

I assume that this is sarcasm. The prison is already a reality now, if you are unable to pay your fines, or if the crime is of a certain extent, you go to prison. But maybe Mr Simon thinks that he can change the entire justice system and make everything better.
Personally I have the feeling he would rather have us go back to the right of the strongest though. You know, everybody gets armed and whoever has the biggest guns, or hires the better gunslingers, is right.

[MSimon]

And if he has no dollars a debtors prison is definitely the answer.

Of course those with property to protect could always insure themselves and then there is no problem.

Or we can mandate that unless you have enough property you are not allowed to own your own conveyance.

I assume that this is sarcasm. The prison is already a reality now, if you are unable to pay your fines, or if the crime is of a certain extent, you go to prison. But maybe Mr Simon thinks that he can change the entire justice system and make everything better.
Personally I have the feeling he would rather have us go back to the right of the strongest though. You know, everybody gets armed and whoever has the biggest guns, or hires the better gunslingers, is right.

It is the right of the strongest now. Or at least those with the most money. We have laws to keep the riff raff off the roads. They don't work perfectly. They do help.

I still think the answer is that those with property to protect should insure it against risk.