It seems to me thta if a person is irresponsible enough to drive without liability insurance, and they all know that it is illegal to do so, why would a “red flag” system be any different?
I often see people involved in accidents
who have had their license suspended or revoked, and there are many other situations where they cause accidents due to reckless driving.
In NY, if your auto policy cancels for any reason, you receive a notice from the
Dept of Motor Vehicles requesting replacement insurance info. Failure to
respond can cause your license to be suspended. These people don’t respond, they don’t care, they will drive anyway.
The only solution is incarceration to keep them of the road. They violate the rights of responsible people, and need to be held accountable.
It is very sad that a few people who don’t care to follow laws cause the majority of law abiding citizens the greif of harder laws to follow.
In California it also doesn’t help when there are so many personal auto brokers advertising on TV that they have the lowest downpayment. You know the people that are look for the loswest down payment are usually just looking to get an auto ID card so they can register their auto at the dmv. They have no intention, in most cases, to ever pay their premium bills. the policy cancels and now they are an uninsured driver again. When they need to renew their registration, they go get another policy bound, pay the deposit, etc. They cycle never ends.
If any one has a real solution to the problem. I would love to know.
Stiffer penalties are the key, in my opinion. Careless drivers should pay more for their carelessness..in the end if the insurance costs are too high for these drivers, they either park the car, or choose to drive the car. Most drive because the criminal penalties of operating without insurance are not daunting enough to cause them to think about the consequences.
More financial penalties are OK, but in the end, many uninsured motorists are financially strapped, so those penalties don’t work well as they have little to lose.
Eliminating bankruptcy from the equation for uninsured motorists might have some impact as well (I am sure some states might even allow it)….if a person cannot bankrupt themself away from the debt, they might think twice about driving.
Criminal penalties are the key – if a person faces significant jail time for failing to have auto insurance it might make an impact (no pun intended).
Forget the laws, the person who does not have insurance either wants it and can’t afford it or is just negligent and in most cases does not even have a valid license. Make UIM coverage part of every auto policy. Of course restrict claims that can be made by unisured cars and their occupants.
I agree with the comments posted by Pat on July 27. I was recently hit by an uninsured motorist, and was unable to recieve any compensation for damages due to a lack of uninsured coverage on my policy. Make uninsured coverage available on ALL policies (for the protection of those that DO pay premiums), and limit, or make unavailable, the ability of uninsureds to make claims at all.
I thoroughly agree with Scott. I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists. I live in a state with a high percentage of these drivers, and I pay for it everyday with higher premiums (which include my UIM coverage!), realizing that if I am involved in an accident with one of these drivers, my insurance company must still pay out on my behalf to fix the vehicle!!!! And the person who has decided not to pay an insurance premium has basically gotten away without penalty.
You said: “I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists.”
Think about what you are promoting. There are states in which Liability Insurance is not Mandatory. You can not impose your State Drivers Requirements upon the Drivers of others States.
Therefore, those drivers have EVERY RIGHT to freely travel through your state, without Insurance, and you can not prosecute them.
Now, think. You are going to prosecute Your State Citizens for Driving on Your State Highways without Insurance, but an Out of Stater can drive your YOur State Highways without Insurance all they like.
Ask yourself. Is that Right?
No, it is not.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam, a Violation of our Right of Innocent and UnConstitutional.
mandatory auto insurance laws eventually cause more problems than they solve. so another law is crreated to solve the new problem that has just arisen from the first law. and so on and so on. that’s the nature of government. there’s nothing an individual can do about it, so just accept it and take advantage of the situation. How? since insurance is mandatory, they will not refuse to sell insurance to even the highest risk drivers like they did forty years ago. pay the big money for the insurance. buy inferior vehicles that are priced significantly below book value. smash them up and collect the book value.
First, I’d like to say to Proffsl that I think his statement about the meaning of “responsibility” is pretty brilliant. I agree with Proffsl but I never thought of it that way.
“RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents is that “Society bears the burden of those that choose to drive without automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. Mandantory insurance laws certainly don’t address that problem.
Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused the damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the guilty driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in any accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting your million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed your right arm instead of your appendix?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty fail to comply, then confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place, such as manslaughter, that already cover such crimes. And most importantly, REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS.
Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning court decisions of the past.
Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in eighteenth century photographs?
I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was and was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and insurance laws.
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit. There were no Federal laws or Federal taxes restricting gun ownership or gambling or drug use.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents ironically is that “Society bears the burden of those choosing to waive automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. I beg these misguided people to demonstrate how mandantory insurance laws solve that problem. They certainly don’t. Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused those injuries and damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the at-fault uninsured driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in ANY accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated for their injuries and damages sustained. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. That is THEFT pure and simple. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting YOUR million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed YOUR right arm instead of an appendix? Small wonder both your Republican and Democratic representatives in government back mandantory insurance laws with equal enthusiasm. Who uses all of that money that the state collects? It now becomes undeniably clear as to just whose interests were really being served when states adopted mandantory insurance laws doesn’t it?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty party fails to comply with that requirement, confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place such as manslaughter presently in place. Most importantly, we need to REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS. Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning the erroneous court decisions of the recent past.
It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and nadantory insurance laws. Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in nineteenth century photographs? I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. Would going back to the justice model of 1776 mean we’d enjoy a utopia? It surely wouldn’t. It’s obvious that a SCARCE FEW of us could wind up with the short end of the stick but under mandantory insurance laws, there’s no doubt that NEARLY ALL of us are receiving the long end.
Proffsl wrote: “RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Clay Rains wrote: “That’s right!”
Often, in support of Mandatory Liability, people would say: “You’ve got to be RESPONSIBLE” (for accidents which haven’t YET (as if they WILL) occured) or “You’ve got to drive RESPONSIBLY”.
Often I hear the phrase: “You need to behave RESPONSIBLY”.
WRONG!!! Instead: “You need to behave RESPECTFULLY”
By behaving RESPECTFULLY, you decrease the likelyhood of being RESPONSIBLE.
Often people will support Mandatory Liability with arguments such as: “If you run your automobile into me, I don’t want to have to pay for the damages.”
Nobody wants to pay for damages they didn’t cause. And, I don’t want to have to pay for damages I didn’t cause. If I haven’t had an accident, where do my Mandatory Liability Premium payments go? They go to pay for damages I didn’t cause!
Using the argument “Nobody should pay for damages they didn’t cause” in support of Mandatory Liability is to say “Virtually EVERYBODY should pay for damages they didn’t cause” !!!
Mandatory Liability forces me to purchase Insurance for the other guy, under the pretense the other guy will purchase Insurance for me. But, as we all know, this isn’t always going to be the case.
And, when this guy runs their automobile into your’s, dispite the fact you purchased insurance for them, you are not covered, and the Insurance company is not liable to pay for any of the damages. You are being forced to pay for something you can never collect on.
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!
“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?
“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?
“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
It seems to me thta if a person is irresponsible enough to drive without liability insurance, and they all know that it is illegal to do so, why would a “red flag” system be any different?
I often see people involved in accidents
who have had their license suspended or revoked, and there are many other situations where they cause accidents due to reckless driving.
In NY, if your auto policy cancels for any reason, you receive a notice from the
Dept of Motor Vehicles requesting replacement insurance info. Failure to
respond can cause your license to be suspended. These people don’t respond, they don’t care, they will drive anyway.
The only solution is incarceration to keep them of the road. They violate the rights of responsible people, and need to be held accountable.
It is very sad that a few people who don’t care to follow laws cause the majority of law abiding citizens the greif of harder laws to follow.
In California it also doesn’t help when there are so many personal auto brokers advertising on TV that they have the lowest downpayment. You know the people that are look for the loswest down payment are usually just looking to get an auto ID card so they can register their auto at the dmv. They have no intention, in most cases, to ever pay their premium bills. the policy cancels and now they are an uninsured driver again. When they need to renew their registration, they go get another policy bound, pay the deposit, etc. They cycle never ends.
If any one has a real solution to the problem. I would love to know.
Stiffer penalties are the key, in my opinion. Careless drivers should pay more for their carelessness..in the end if the insurance costs are too high for these drivers, they either park the car, or choose to drive the car. Most drive because the criminal penalties of operating without insurance are not daunting enough to cause them to think about the consequences.
More financial penalties are OK, but in the end, many uninsured motorists are financially strapped, so those penalties don’t work well as they have little to lose.
Eliminating bankruptcy from the equation for uninsured motorists might have some impact as well (I am sure some states might even allow it)….if a person cannot bankrupt themself away from the debt, they might think twice about driving.
Criminal penalties are the key – if a person faces significant jail time for failing to have auto insurance it might make an impact (no pun intended).
Forget the laws, the person who does not have insurance either wants it and can’t afford it or is just negligent and in most cases does not even have a valid license. Make UIM coverage part of every auto policy. Of course restrict claims that can be made by unisured cars and their occupants.
I agree with the comments posted by Pat on July 27. I was recently hit by an uninsured motorist, and was unable to recieve any compensation for damages due to a lack of uninsured coverage on my policy. Make uninsured coverage available on ALL policies (for the protection of those that DO pay premiums), and limit, or make unavailable, the ability of uninsureds to make claims at all.
I thoroughly agree with Scott. I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists. I live in a state with a high percentage of these drivers, and I pay for it everyday with higher premiums (which include my UIM coverage!), realizing that if I am involved in an accident with one of these drivers, my insurance company must still pay out on my behalf to fix the vehicle!!!! And the person who has decided not to pay an insurance premium has basically gotten away without penalty.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam and a Violation of our Right of Innocent until proven guilty.
Liability is Guilt. Mandatory Liability forces the Innocent to pay for damages they did not cause.
You said: “irresponsible enough to drive without liability insurance,”
RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam and a Violation of our Right of Innocent until proven guilty.
Liability is Guilt. Mandatory Liability forces the Innocent to pay for damages they did not cause.
You said: “irresponsible enough to drive without liability insurance,”
RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.
It is a shame to use Laws to force Innocent people to pay for damages they did not cause.
If you are Innocent of causing any damages to any others, where do you believe your preimum payments go? They go to pay for damages you did not cause.
It is a shame to use Laws to force Innocent people to pay for damages they did not cause.
If you are Innocent of causing any damages to any others, where do you believe your preimum payments go? They go to pay for damages you did not cause.
You said: “I believe the criminal penalties should be enforced for uninsured motorists.”
Think about what you are promoting. There are states in which Liability Insurance is not Mandatory. You can not impose your State Drivers Requirements upon the Drivers of others States.
Therefore, those drivers have EVERY RIGHT to freely travel through your state, without Insurance, and you can not prosecute them.
Now, think. You are going to prosecute Your State Citizens for Driving on Your State Highways without Insurance, but an Out of Stater can drive your YOur State Highways without Insurance all they like.
Ask yourself. Is that Right?
No, it is not.
Mandatory Liability is a Scam, a Violation of our Right of Innocent and UnConstitutional.
mandatory auto insurance laws eventually cause more problems than they solve. so another law is crreated to solve the new problem that has just arisen from the first law. and so on and so on. that’s the nature of government. there’s nothing an individual can do about it, so just accept it and take advantage of the situation. How? since insurance is mandatory, they will not refuse to sell insurance to even the highest risk drivers like they did forty years ago. pay the big money for the insurance. buy inferior vehicles that are priced significantly below book value. smash them up and collect the book value.
Your attitude is disgusting. You say: Things are Wrong. Take advantage of them, and do more wrong things.
NO.
First, I’d like to say to Proffsl that I think his statement about the meaning of “responsibility” is pretty brilliant. I agree with Proffsl but I never thought of it that way.
“RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
That’s right!
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents is that “Society bears the burden of those that choose to drive without automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. Mandantory insurance laws certainly don’t address that problem.
Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused the damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the guilty driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in any accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting your million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed your right arm instead of your appendix?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty fail to comply, then confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place, such as manslaughter, that already cover such crimes. And most importantly, REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS.
Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning court decisions of the past.
Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in eighteenth century photographs?
I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was and was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and insurance laws.
Mandantory insurance has proven to be a Constitutionally and logically flawed legislative remedy just like seat belt laws, drug prohibition, gun control and a host of other compulsory legislation enacted recently. Our Founding Fathers cleary saw the folly of compelling compliance to the law by penalizing the innocent, hence the absence of any such laws to their credit. There were no Federal laws or Federal taxes restricting gun ownership or gambling or drug use.
The the vital flaw in these compulsory laws lies in the approach: There is no compensation given to victims. The underlying argument of mandantory insurance proponents ironically is that “Society bears the burden of those choosing to waive automobile insurance.” That’s true only if that uninsured motorist causes an accident. I beg these misguided people to demonstrate how mandantory insurance laws solve that problem. They certainly don’t. Under mandantory insurance laws, who bears the responsibility when an uninsured motorist damages another’s person or property? The answer is, everyone except the person that caused those injuries and damages. The law officer responding to the accident will issue the at-fault uninsured driver the exact same summons’ that he would to an uninsured driver NOT at fault in ANY accident.
To compound the previous injustice, the victim of the crime is not compensated for their injuries and damages sustained. Who receives the revenue from an insurance ticket? The state receives that revenue. That is THEFT pure and simple. The state was not a party in the accident. It was the victim that was injured, not the state, yet the state receives the compensation for the victim’s injuries. How is that different from the state collecting YOUR million dollars in damages from a doctor that mistakenly removed YOUR right arm instead of an appendix? Small wonder both your Republican and Democratic representatives in government back mandantory insurance laws with equal enthusiasm. Who uses all of that money that the state collects? It now becomes undeniably clear as to just whose interests were really being served when states adopted mandantory insurance laws doesn’t it?
What is the solution to uninsured motorists? Let them drive without insurance all they want so long as they don’t cause an accident. If they cause an accident, let the victim be free to sue for damages. If the uninsured are found guilty, require them to directly compensate the victim. If the the guilty party fails to comply with that requirement, confiscate their property in proportion to the damages caused and disperse it directly to the victim. If the accident had more serious consequences, there are many laws currently in place such as manslaughter presently in place. Most importantly, we need to REPEAL MANDANTORY SEAT BELT LAWS. Are there some minor problems with what I’m suggesting? Sure there are. But these restrictions are caused by additional flawed, immoral and uneffective laws that we currently have on the books. The answer to the uninsured motorist lies not in enacting more legislation but in repealing past legislation and overturning the erroneous court decisions of the recent past.
It’s MANDANTORY that we go backwards rather than forward with our justice system and nadantory insurance laws. Are traffic accidents something unique to our modern age? They were certainly not. It was not unheard of for our ancestors to be injured and killed carriage and horseback riding accidents due to the fault of others. Yet, how many of our ancestors were forced to carry insurance on their buggies? For that matter, how many laws required those folks to strap themselves into a stagecoach? How many horseback riders did you see wearing helmets in nineteenth century photographs? I would guess not many. That’s because our justice system was “right-side-up” in those days. Victims and perpetrators were dealt with directly. New legislation was an absolute last resort to solve problems 200 years ago. Would going back to the justice model of 1776 mean we’d enjoy a utopia? It surely wouldn’t. It’s obvious that a SCARCE FEW of us could wind up with the short end of the stick but under mandantory insurance laws, there’s no doubt that NEARLY ALL of us are receiving the long end.
Proffsl wrote: “RESPONSIBLE people are GUILTY people. Innocent people are NOT Responsible.”
Clay Rains wrote: “That’s right!”
Often, in support of Mandatory Liability, people would say: “You’ve got to be RESPONSIBLE” (for accidents which haven’t YET (as if they WILL) occured) or “You’ve got to drive RESPONSIBLY”.
Often I hear the phrase: “You need to behave RESPONSIBLY”.
WRONG!!! Instead: “You need to behave RESPECTFULLY”
By behaving RESPECTFULLY, you decrease the likelyhood of being RESPONSIBLE.
It pleases me that at least you understand this.
Often people will support Mandatory Liability with arguments such as: “If you run your automobile into me, I don’t want to have to pay for the damages.”
Nobody wants to pay for damages they didn’t cause. And, I don’t want to have to pay for damages I didn’t cause. If I haven’t had an accident, where do my Mandatory Liability Premium payments go? They go to pay for damages I didn’t cause!
Using the argument “Nobody should pay for damages they didn’t cause” in support of Mandatory Liability is to say “Virtually EVERYBODY should pay for damages they didn’t cause” !!!
Mandatory Liability forces me to purchase Insurance for the other guy, under the pretense the other guy will purchase Insurance for me. But, as we all know, this isn’t always going to be the case.
And, when this guy runs their automobile into your’s, dispite the fact you purchased insurance for them, you are not covered, and the Insurance company is not liable to pay for any of the damages. You are being forced to pay for something you can never collect on.
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!
“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?
“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?
“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