6 ms·
Why don't we just let individuals choose if they want to have car insurance? If they want it, they can have it - if they don't, they don't have to. The same (v
by BoiledCabbage 9y ago
Why don't we just let individuals choose if they want to have car insurance? If they want it, they can have it - if they don't, they don't have to.
The same (very good) reason we don't allow that is the reason we don't allow this: a lot of individual decisions have social costs.
- subverter 9y agoWhat is the social cost of some not having car insurance?
- bjl 9y agoThey run over a pedestrian without insurance, now that pedestrian has no way to pay for their medical care.
- subverter 9y agoWhat's stopping the pedestrian from either holding insurance to protect against that or suing the driver for damages?
- yock 9y agoYou liquidate the assets of the at-fault party. If that is insufficient you garnish their wages. Financial responsibility is something to be enforced by courts, not mandated by congress.
- Decathect 9y agoThey died in the accident, leaving behind a critically injured spouse and their kids. The medical bills for any one of the surviving parties dwarf the net assets of the deceased. Who pays the remainder?
- subverter 9y agoThere are already solutions available when there's no counter-party or the counter-party is unfit. i.e., uninsured motorist insurance, life insurance, etc. And who's to say the extended family or community wouldn't step up to cover their expenses?
- bjl 9y agoOr, instead of depending on utopic ideals and discredited economic theories, we can just make people buy liability insurance if they want to drive a car.
- subverter 9y agoWe obviously have different ideas about what's utopian and what's not. I think it's utopian to believe a centralized, federal government has all of the necessary knowledge and best intentions to make blanket decisions for hundreds of millions of people. This really goes to prove my initial point in all of this: Why can't we get to a place where you can live somewhere more aligned with your utopian vision, and I can likewise live somewhere more aligned with mine? Why must either of us force our vision on the other?
- bjl 9y agoBecause, under your 'utopia', we never would have had the civil rights movement. Or woman's suffrage. Or gay marriage.
- subverter 9y agoIf that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.
- 9y ago
- gnaritas 9y agoThe party at fault may not have assets nor a job, your solution is is not a solution and doesn't help the person harmed when they actually need it, at the time of the accident. > Financial responsibility is something to be enforced by courts, not mandated by congress. That's a matter of opinion.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Why don't we just let individuals choose if they want to have car insurance? We do allow them to choose that: you don't have to have car insurance, not even if you own a car. We don't, however, allow them to drive on public roads without liability insurance or (in some jurisdictions, like CA) posting a liability bond.