Oklahoma Insurance Department Spends $180K on Guns, Police Vehicles

By Sean Murphy | December 3, 2012

  • December 3, 2012 at 8:21 am
    Roland says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    “I believe the aesthetics of police units with the Department of Insurance markings are terrible from a public perception point of view,” Murphey wrote.
    I think the aesthetics are perfect. What a great way to illustrate the difference between the state, which settles disputes by dispatching an evil-looking black Dodge Charger bristling with shotguns, and the free market, where disagreements are routinely settled peacefully by consumers who simply vote with their pocketbooks.

  • December 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    IJ Reader says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 11

    The opening sentence of the article just does not seem fair. How are Remington pump-action shotguns considered “high-tech”? Those are old-school, and quite affordable too (reasonably priced). This actually undercuts the criticism of the expenditures.

  • December 3, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    Libby says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 17

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • December 3, 2012 at 2:07 pm
      Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 18
      Thumb down 3

      Not everyone in Oklahoma is packing heat Libby. It is common that warrants are served by peace officers like Constables, Sheriffs, Police Departments, DPS Troopers. I am not sure we need Insurance Department employees armed to the teeth to serve warrants. This sounds like a waste of money. The Police need to get out of the Donut shops and do their job when required.

      • December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm
        Libby says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 4

        I knew that would draw a response.

      • December 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm
        IJ Reader says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 11

        Remington pump-action shotguns are modest guns, not “high tech” as the first sentence of this article stated. And what is your definition of “armed to the teeth,” just anyone who carries any firearm is “armed to the teeth” or does it have to be a certain size or caliber? Plenty of people carry firearms every day. It is not intimidating. The other poster referred to a vehicle “bristling with shotguns.” I don’t see how a few guns may suddenly constitute a “bristle.”

        • December 3, 2012 at 3:23 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 9

          Firearms are intimidating to me.

          • December 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 3

            It sounds to me like you should consider going to a gun safety course at the shooting range and become proficient at protecting yourself. I have a CSR who is a divocee who lives in a rural area and she did it and feels a lot safer now. If some burglar breaks into her house now at night, they will not be leaving. I told her to make sure he was all the way in the house and not in the garden.

          • December 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 6

            Nah. I’d probably just shoot my dog by mistake. I’ll just take my chances. But thanks for the tip.

        • December 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm
          Libby says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 16

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • December 4, 2012 at 4:43 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 2

            Libby, If you shot the dog by mistake, you probably didn’t pay attention at the gun safety course. There is quite a difference between a dog and a 200 lb man aiming to possibly rape and murder you. If I am out of town, I want my wife to be able to protect herself. We live in a safe neighborhood, but in today’s society, anything can happen at any time.

          • December 5, 2012 at 7:59 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Again, I’ll pass.

        • December 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm
          Agent says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 15
          Thumb down 1

          Would you rather face a 38 Special or a Remington shotgun at close range? A shotgun will take a perps head off and you don’t have to be that accurate with it. A weapon does not have to be high tech like what the military uses to be effective. A lot of Police cruisers have shotguns in them. I am not sure they need these high powered cars to serve warrants. This is not CSI Los Angeles in Oklahoma. How many high speed chases are they going to do? That is the job of Law Enforcement, not the Insurance Dept.

          • December 4, 2012 at 8:10 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            I’d rather not face either, Agent.

        • December 4, 2012 at 11:20 am
          Roland says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 8

          Hyperbole: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
          My post had nothing to do with how many guns the government enforcers carry or how “high tech” they are. The point was that it is dumb to inject SWAT-like enforcement practices into the relationship between insurer and insured. When left alone, the market can handle disputes much more effectively, and nobody is in danger of taking any bullets.

          • December 4, 2012 at 11:26 am
            Libby says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 12
            Thumb down 1

            Agreed. Let the sheriff’s office serve the warrants. That’s what they’re there for.

      • December 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 2

        I agree with you, Agent. The Insurance Dept doesn’t need to be deputizing itself. Insurance Regulators…mount up!

  • December 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    boonedoggle says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 36
    Thumb down 2

    Duh, wouldn’t it have been cheaper to buy these guys cell phone so that they can call in appropriate law enforcement agencies when they feel threatened? If they are far enough away from danger to grab their $699 shot guns, they ought to be far enough away to await the arrival of real cops!

    • December 3, 2012 at 3:00 pm
      Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 24
      Thumb down 2

      This is probably a reaction to the Louisiana agent that was being closed down for fraud who shot the Insurance Dept people and then committed suicide. I have not seen this anywhere before, but we are living in a more dangerous society than before. This should be left to law enforcement, not insurance investigators to serve warrants for fraud.

  • December 3, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    SEAN says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 19
    Thumb down 2

    This is Oklahoma for Petes sake? We have more murders in Phila. over a weekend than OK. has all Yr & PA. doesn’t have these expenditures…

    • December 3, 2012 at 4:08 pm
      Libby says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 17

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • December 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • December 3, 2012 at 4:56 pm
        Agent says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 25
        Thumb down 5

        Yeah Libby, That’s what we do down here in Oklahoma & Texas. We are just waiting for some of those northern blue state Liberals to come down here so we can blow them away. What has Chicago had this year, 500 murders and they have very tough gun control laws? The problem with gun control laws is that the perps are the ones that end up with guns illegally obtained and they are the ones committing the violence. Law abiding people with license to carry are not the ones causing the problems, only the crooks.

        • December 4, 2012 at 8:12 am
          Libby says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 21

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • December 4, 2012 at 10:29 am
            Agent says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 17
            Thumb down 2

            Libby, you have no argument at all so you just make a snarky comment. Did you know that Alpharetta, Ga has the lowest incidence of gun violence for its size in the country? The heads of the household have licensed guns for self defense and Alpharetta has very few gun crimes being committed because perps know they are taking a big chance to try to rob someone.

          • December 4, 2012 at 10:37 am
            Libby says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 17

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • December 4, 2012 at 10:40 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 13

            Just how many “perps” are in Alpharetta, GA, Agent? You will not sway me on this issue. I don’t like guns, I don’t want to own one, and I don’t like being around them. Last I checked, that was my right as an American. I didn’t you you couldn’t own firearms, so please don’t tell me that I should. I DON’T LIKE GUNS. Period.

          • December 4, 2012 at 10:41 am
            Libby says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 16

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • December 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 11
            Thumb down 3

            There are obviously very few perps planning robberies in Alpharetta because they know they will have a problem if they do try something. Self preservation, so they go to Atlanta to do their deeds. Meanwhile, Alpharetta is considered a very safe city to live in. Does your city have strict gun control? How would you protect yourself if someone broke into your house? FFA can tell you about gun violence in Chicago and street thugs roaming around shooting people on the street and Dead Fish does nothing about it because he would be “profiling” if he sent the Swat team after them.

          • December 4, 2012 at 11:00 am
            Libby says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 14

            My husband has 2 firearms, but no bullets. Those wouldn’t help us much. So I guess if someone broke into my home intent on harming me, I would be harmed. However, that is not high on my list of concerns. I choose not to live my life in fear. I find people that expect trouble, usually find it.

  • December 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    Ruminator says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    I want to know who writes their insurance…and whether or not there is a definition of reasonable force that includes the fire arms? Definitely an expectation of bodily injury here!

    • December 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 4

      The way I look at it Libby is: Expect the best, but prepare for the worst. We live in a very dangerous society now and there is a lot of anger being manifested and due to the economy, people are doing some very bad things to get money. Drugs are a very big issue and people are crazy when they get hooked. They will do literally anything to get that next fix. Law abiding citizens need to have the ability to protect themselves or they will become another statistic.

      • December 4, 2012 at 1:41 pm
        Libby says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 13
        Thumb down 1

        Feel free to protect yourself as you see fit, Agent. This is, after all, America.

  • December 4, 2012 at 10:48 am
    Parsnates says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 0

    I really don’t know if they can or cannot get the necessary help from the police so I can’t opine as to whether this is a necessary expenditure. People should understand, however, that the fraud they are talking about is not your Aunt Millie cheating on a home owners insurance claim. There really are some very nasty people doing this stuff. Insurance fraud includes staged auto accident rings, murder for life insurance and arson. This is not “little white lie” stuff, it’s full on criminal activity by some unsavory characters.

    • December 5, 2012 at 7:44 am
      jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Something else not mentioned is the training for the DOI fraud employees. Are they former law enforcement? Do they have the proper training to use all these tools?

      • December 5, 2012 at 8:20 am
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 9

        Yeah, that’s kind of scary. Arm ‘em up and set ‘em loose. Yee hah!

  • December 4, 2012 at 11:51 am
    Parsnates says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    I have no idea whether the insurance department has ready access to help from the police, so I can’t opine on whether having some equipped enforcement officers of their own is warranted. I would like to point out to those assuming this is to handle insurance disputes, that insurance fraud can be a very nasty business,. We aren’t talking about your Aunt Millie fudging a home owners claim to cover the deductible. Insurance fraud includes staged accident rings, murder for life insurance proceeds and arson. These are full on criminal acts perpetrated by some pretty unsavory characters. For cases like these, I wold certainly want armed back up when making an arrest, regardless of where it comes from. Calling the police on a cell phone when faced with an armed suspect would not be my first choice for security.

  • December 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 9

    Why do I get thumbed down just because I don’t like guns? I am not infringing on your right to like them or buy them or collect them or use them. I just don’t like them for myself.

    Do you all really want me to go out and buy a gun? Remember, I’m a liberal, socialist living on the fringe. In other words, a very scary person…

    • December 5, 2012 at 12:51 pm
      FYI says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 2

      More than half of the posts in this comment thread have been by you, and none of them even seem to relate to the risk/insurance industry. It crowds out the effort to keep the discussion civil and relevant. A few posters here, such as Parsnates, have actually tried to make valid points related to the content of the Insurance Journal article. For instance, insurance fraud is a very high stakes professional field, not a desk job.

      • December 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm
        Roland says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 2

        Well said, @FYI. My original post – the first in this thread – attempted to argue that the last thing the over-regulated insurance industry needs is armed enforcers courtesy of the state.
        I recently read an article by a guy who had a dispute over his and his wife’s orders at a restaurant while vacationing in Mexico. In short, they thought they had been “taken” on their check. He had paid with his Visa card, so when he got home he contacted the credit card company. Within hours the dispute was settled to his satisfaction, from a thousand miles away and without any violence or threats.
        Of course insurance fraud is a much more serious issue than getting a raw deal in a restaurant, but that’s all the more reason to leave dispute resolution to the free market, where everybody involved has incentives to do the right thing without shooting anybody.
        BTW, I do own guns, and wouldn’t hesitate to use them to defend my family. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      • December 5, 2012 at 2:38 pm
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 9

        That’s because I got into a conversation about guns with Agent. If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. Or better yet, thumb them down so they are hidden. This is a blog. That’s the purpose of a blog. Sometimes it strays off topic. Grow up.

      • December 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 4

        Hey FYI, get used to the Libby/Planet diatribe. They are joined at the hip anti-gun Socialists who think guns should be confiscated from the folks. We are just the redneck crowd who cling to our guns and religion and don’t matter in the national discourse because we don’t agree with their positions and actually want to protect ourselves from the criminal element in our society.

        • December 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 7

          Agent, that’s just rubbish. I never said anything about confiscating your beloved guns. I agree with you that you are a redneck clinging to your guns, but I do not wish to take them from you. I just don’t want them around me. How does that make me a Socialist?

  • December 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 5

    Libby, Over the course of the past few years and hundreds of blog posts, anyone could see you loved your Socialist in Chief and all he stood for with his redistribution of wealth policies, wild big spending Stimulus plans, anti-business stance etc, etc, etc. He wants to raise marginal tax rates while not cutting back on government spending, in fact wants to spend $250 Billion more when this country is on a fiscal cliff. Now, he plans to spend $4million on another Hawaii vacation instead of sitting down and doing serious compromising. If you love all that stuff, that makes you a Socialist.

    • December 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 6

      Whatever, Agent. Call me whatever names you want. It no longer bothers me because you are so clueless.

      • December 6, 2012 at 7:20 am
        Roland says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Hey Libby, since we’ve driven everybody away who doesn’t like off-topic comments anyway, I’m curious:
        You obviously have an aversion to violence (an admirable trait), and you personally don’t want to possess a firearm that would give you the option of using deadly force against another human being. So why are “liberals” so in love with the state? The state IS violence. The legal use of force is what sets it apart from every other institution on earth. How can a liberal oppose, on an individual level, using violence or the threat of violence against another person (in your case apparently even in self-defense), but be a cheerleader for an institution that uses those same methods every day to force people to do things they don’t want to do, prevent them from doing things they do want to do, and to take wealth from people who earned it so they can give it to somebody who didn’t earn it?

        • December 6, 2012 at 8:59 am
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          Roland, I appreciate you asking me a question and giving me a chance to respond. Not too many people do that on this site, as they are too busy thumbing me down before even reading what I post.

          What makes you think I am in love with the “State” as you call it? I am actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But by being socially liberal, I get lumped into a stereotype of aSocialist, Fascist, Communist, Democrat. I do have an aversion to violence, am against the death penalty (legalized murder), am not a big fan of unions, and think that seat belt laws are unconstitutional. I am pro-choice and anti-discrimination.

          I am not “for” taking wealth from people to give it to someone else. I am “for” the wealthy paying the same share I pay. I would like to see a flat tax. The wealthy, who are behind the people that make the laws, have had the tax code written in their favor for too long.

          Now, hopefully I have made my position clear, but I’m sure I have not. I will continue to be called Socialist, Fascist, & Communist and will just shake my head and wonder at the people that jump to conclusions and make judgements without asking questions.

          • December 6, 2012 at 9:37 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            Holy cow! I just realized I am a Libertarian. That explains everything.

          • December 6, 2012 at 10:01 am
            Roland says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Thanks for the clarification, Libby. Notice that I said “liberals” (using the present-day definition, not the classical one) love the state, not “you” love the state, since I wasn’t sure of your views. As for paying one’s fair share is concerned, I’m all for it. Let’s make everybody’s fair share zero and force the creeps in DC to pack up and go home.
            I see the current fascist (or corporatist or crony-capitalist or whatever you want to call it) system as a poisonous combination of two ingredients: big government and big business. But which is the evil ingredient? Government. It’s like mixing oatmeal with cyanide. The oatmeal can’t hurt anybody unless you mix it it with the poison. The state is always the evil ingredient.
            BTW, the “state” usually refers to the more-or-less permanent coercive institution, whereas “government” is the gang of liars and thieves that are currently running it.

          • December 6, 2012 at 10:25 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 0

            Thanks for the education, Roland. I think you and I may be closer to agreeing than disagreeing on most issues. I do not tend to be quite as anti-establishment maybe, but I do question authority and believe all the creeps in DC need to go packing. I just think we should replace them with a few good people. Since I an way too old to go to boot camp, I advocate some sort of government so we have a defense against invasion and our infrastructure from crumbling. I don’t mind paying for certain things and, in fact, think it is patriotic to pay taxes, but I want a bigger say into where the money goes.

          • December 6, 2012 at 10:36 am
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 3

            Libby, you can’t have it both ways. It is impossible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and make it all come out. The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train. Being socially liberal means you are for all the wonderful social programs that cost big money (that we don’t have). We are spending a trillion dollars more than we are taking in due to all the entitlements/social programs that have been initiated for many years. You are against the death penalty for murderers and then you condone millions of murders each year by legalized partial birth abortion. I do agree that we need the flat or fair tax instead of our terrible Progressive tax code full of loopholes. Our biggest problem is the drunken spending of Congress and Presidents who throw money at every problem thinking that is all the have to do to fix a problem. You must be very conflicted with your views.

          • December 6, 2012 at 11:13 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            I was conflicted, Agent. I think I’ve said that before. When I say socially liberal, I mean about personal freedoms. Pro-choice, anti-discrimination, pro-gay marriage. People should be free to be who they are without judgement or disdain and certainly without government intervention.

            I am against murder, but I do not consider an abortion to be murder. That zygote or fetus can not survive outside the mother’s womb. Therefore, it is not a person or human being yet.

            And PLEASE stop confusing pro-choice with pro-abortion. They are two distinctly different things. Pro-choice means you have the choice to have or NOT to have an abortion, to use or NOT to use birth control, to take or NOT to take the morning after pill. I do not advocate telling people what they should or shouldn’t do or can and cannot do. I think that is anti-government in a way.

            The more I read about Libertarianism, the more I think that’s where I fit. Too bad they are not big enough to make an impact. Maybe I’ll volunteer and campaign!

    • December 5, 2012 at 4:31 pm
      Roland says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      Hey Agent, you know how much I respect you, dude, but one clarification: redistribution does not in itself a socialist make. Real socialism entails state ownership of the means of production. In that sense, Obama isn’t much more socialist than Bush or Romney or even Reagan. Actually they are all fascists, promoting private ownership but government control. If they weren’t, they would all have fought for immediate deregulation of the insurance business – and every other business, for that matter.
      An example of a real socialist American institution is schools. The means of production (the buildings, the buses, the books – everything down to the basketballs in the gym) are owned by the state. Yet Republicans support this evil system every bit as much as Democrats. Remember No Child Left Behind?
      Sorry, @FYI, there I go, off-topic. Libby made me do it!

      • December 5, 2012 at 4:50 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 2

        You are right Roland, Libby makes us do it and we get off topic. I hate to rain on your parade since I agree with much of what you say, but Socialism is Communism lite. Communism, as practiced by the former Soviet Union owned and controlled all means of production from the farms to industry. Socialism, as practiced in this country does not own the means of production, but seeks to control by legislation and bureaucracy our way of life. Socialists think they are smarter than we are and know what is best for us. They are also very good at spending our tax dollars for their clueless social programs and they seek to indoctrinate the populace (public schools)& media to try to say their system is better than Capitalism. Never mind that their system has been an abysmal failure everywhere it has been tried. They keep trying the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result. It is due to get very ugly in the next several months with the fiscal cliff looming and politicians jawing back and forth with one another and nothing getting done to recover the economy. There may be some good bargains available for tar and feathers and rails.

        • December 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm
          Roland says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 1

          Yes, I certainly agree with the “as practiced in this country” part, and I’m sure most American conservatives equate redistributionism with socialism – it’s definitely the popular definition.
          I think you and I have been down this road before, but supposedly market-oriented Republicans have a pathetic record when it comes to fighting for true economic liberty. When Bush talked about “privatizing” Social(ist) Security, he didn’t have the spine to advocate just getting rid of it as a true constitutionalist or libertarian would have; he took the fascist path and proposed that the government and Wall Street hop in the sack together.
          Off topic again. Well, at least in my last post I used the word “insurance.”

          • December 5, 2012 at 5:36 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 1

            We haven’t had a true Conservative advocating a free market position in quite a few years going back to Ronnie. What we do have are a bunch of RINO’s like McCain, Graham, Boehner who are closet liberals who have signed onto most of the big spending legislation that has been so disastrous to this country. I will say that Republicans were not the ones who moved the Social Security Trust Fund to the General Fund to spend on social programs and guaranteeing its demise. We have LBJ and his cohorts to thank for that. Then, we have Slick Willy & Al Gore to thank for taxing Social Security benefits. They never saw a tax they didn’t like and it continues unabated with this administration.

      • December 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Libby, I do agree that you are conflicted on your views. I don’t think you are a Libertarian since they wouldn’t agree with your Social issues positions. True Libertarians are strange animals with wierd positions on a lot of issues. This is why Ron Paul could not gain traction with the voters except for a few of his die hard wierdos. He didn’t see a problem with Iran having a nuke. What an idiot! About the only thing I agreed with him on is an audit of the Fed due to their propensity for quantitative easing and printing money 24/7 which devalues our currency.

        • December 6, 2012 at 1:00 pm
          Libby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          I’m certainly not an expert on Libertarianism, and also realize political parties are comprised of individuals with diverse backgrounds and beliefs.

          But one definition of the Libertarian Party says this:

          The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy.

          I think that’s something I could buy into. Maybe I’m a right-leaning Libertarian? Not real radical, but the principles I agree with.

          • December 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Your quote of the Libertarian platform points out that whoever wrote it was puffing on some of that Cannabis when they did it. That is why they can’t garner more than 2% of the voting public with their candidates. Half of their positions make some sense and the other half are so far out no one likes them. Judging from statements made by Ron Paul, it is no wonder he faded from the race rather quickly. You would have some very strange bedfellows if you go over to their side.

          • December 6, 2012 at 2:57 pm
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Strange bedfellow, huh? This Libertarian thing is sounding better and better…

  • December 6, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    Roland says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    This careening thread illustrates one thing very well: that politics and the state constitute a cesspool that leaves all who touch it worse off. Under any other circumstances I’ll bet that Agent, Libby and I would be having a few laughs and sharing stories about our families or our work; instead we waste our time trading insults and trying to decide what labels to pin on one another.
    These evil institutions do nothing to make our lives better. Reminds me of government roads, where myriad stupid rules accomplish nothing but to give people more reasons to become indignant.
    I am more convinced every day that the state and the self-interested scumbags who run it are useless to us. There are far better ways to organize society.

  • December 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Am I the only insurance practitioner who reads this site? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 3

    Why can’t we have a discussion about the actual merits of the Insurance Journal article? Why must everything descend into political dogma? This is the sort of Titanic thread that just pushes people like me over to the actual insurance news sites like Risk & Insurance. The comments could at least be moderated.

    • December 6, 2012 at 2:12 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Then just read the article and stay away from the comments.

    • December 6, 2012 at 2:14 pm
      Roland says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      Sure we can have that discussion. Do you have a point to make about the article? The fact is that the article is about state involvement in the insurance business. In fact most of the articles here are about state involvement in the insurance business. Government sticks its nose into our business more every day. Government sticks its nose into EVERYBODY’s business more every day. We cannot escape it. That’s why the descent into political dogma is inevitable on a forum like this.

      • December 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        You are right Roland. We have just about had enough of government poking their nose into our business. I live in the great state of Texas and they have a large insurance department which can be pretty overbearing on a whole host of issues facing agents. Their website is hard to navigate and if you can figure out who to call on an issue, good luck.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features