5 ms·

Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you and enforced by the government. Isn't it bad enough that your taxes, which are a real

Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you and enforced by the government. Isn't it bad enough that your taxes, which are a real social contract, go to pay government workers to ensure that you're purchasing the required private, for profit, service? Now we're building surveillance infrastructure for them.

chii 2y ago
> Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you so if you had an accident that caused damage to somebody else, and you didnt have money to pay for said damage, who makes the other party whole?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cwillu 2y ago
FWIW, there is such a thing as public-sector insurance. The required auto insurance in saskatchewan, for instance, is tied to your registration and administered by the same crown corporation, which doesn't have the profit motive that a private insurer has.
toast0 2y ago
The social contract is really to fix the damage your (at fault) collisions cause. At least in jurisdictions I've been in, the state requires evidence of financial responsibility as a requirement for driving. (Enforcement is a separate issue from requirement). A car insurance policy is evidence of financial responsibility, and the most common; but you can also post a bond of something like the minimum insurance amounts. Yes, if you don't have the money to post a bond, you're more or less forced into insurance or not driving (or driving illegaly), but that's we know you'll uphold the social construct of fixing the damages you cause. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle, because it's not as easy to cause damages with a bicycle.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  Self insurance is no longer a thing in the UK. I think the administrative work of ensuring you capture increased bonds with inflation was judged unacceptable or something? So actual insurance is mandatory for people who operate motor vehicles on public roads
tialaramex 2y ago
The alternative is that cars are prohibited because we've decided not to insure the risk and their owners definitely can't be relied upon to just happen to be able to cover the costs when, inevitably, they are incurred. I'm OK with "all private motor vehicles are prohibited" but you need to be clear if that's what you want
- rconti 2y ago
  To play devil's advocate (and avoid the wrath of a certain lobby): We don't require knife insurance.
  - chuckadams 2y ago
    Do you use your knives daily in a fashion that might injure bystanders? If so maybe you should be made to carry mandatory insurance.
    - kyleee 2y ago
      There has been discussion about piloting something like that in london
  - gnarlynarwhal42 2y ago
    To extend your analogy slightly (while recognizing the actual meaning), if you go to an axe throwing venue (range) you dont have to carry insurance, but the range does carry insurance. If you go into the wilderness where axe throwing is allowed, and you maim or kill someone, you are personally liable to be sued or prosecuted. If you throw an axe where it is not allowed, you are also personally liable criminally and civilly.
- thatcat 2y ago
  Socializing the risk in this way is a regressive tax, there are clearly other alternative organizational structures.
multjoy 2y ago
The point of mandatory third party insurance is so that when you drive through the putative crowd of children waiting for the bus, the state and the victim's families are not on the hook for lifetime care costs which can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars per victim.
- thatcat 2y ago
  Idk seems like a get out of jail free card when you should probably be in debt for life, slaving away for your grave negligence, not let off the hook because you paid 100$ a month.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Let off the hook? That's what criminal penalties are for. Without mandatory insurance those victims wouldn't get anything.
    - thatcat 2y ago
      There can be other systems than private subsidized insurance for that, criminal penalties are rare. It would need to be like a dui for that to work.
  - multjoy 2y ago
    That’s no good to the victim, is it.
    - thatcat 2y ago
      You can't really retroactively fix things with money, the idea that it "compensates" in some equal way is simply wrong. Money helps with the medical bills, disability, etc. It's better than nothing, but even if you pursue civil or criminal litigation it's not going make any one else take paying attention to controlling their heavy machinery more seriously. The perception of consequences diminishes, even though there are real consequences they seem like tail end risks since causing an accident doesn't typically result in jail time or civil litigation. I guess my hypothesis, based on a single observation is that people take extra risk because they have insurance and so feel like if they get in a wreck - it won't be that bad and they might get a new car.
flir 2y ago
"Obey the law" isn't part of the social contract? Hmm.
- thatcat 2y ago
  Law 209348032984: Pay some guy for dubiously priced services that are clearly a government function. If you don't do it you're a statistical thief who refused to pay for something that didn't happen. Seems like the law itself is violating the social contract.
  - flir 2y ago
    I don't think "buy some car insurance if you're going to drive" is any more unreasonable than "buy a crash helmet if you're going to drive". But I can see how there would be a range of valid opinions on the matter. Some places do have a single government-owned insurance company: whatever they say you have to pay, you have to pay. No other options.
gnfargbl 2y ago
You can survive quite happily without a car, and thus without car insurance, in the vast majority of the UK. Vehicle ownership is not mandatory either in principle or practice.

chii 2y ago

> Insurance isn't a social contract, it's private business foisted upon you so if you had an accident that caused damage to somebody else, and you didnt have money to pay for said damage, who makes the other party whole?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cwillu 2y ago

FWIW, there is such a thing as public-sector insurance. The required auto insurance in saskatchewan, for instance, is tied to your registration and administered by the same crown corporation, which doesn't have the profit motive that a private insurer has.

toast0 2y ago

The social contract is really to fix the damage your (at fault) collisions cause. At least in jurisdictions I've been in, the state requires evidence of financial responsibility as a requirement for driving. (Enforcement is a separate issue from requirement). A car insurance policy is evidence of financial responsibility, and the most common; but you can also post a bond of something like the minimum insurance amounts. Yes, if you don't have the money to post a bond, you're more or less forced into insurance or not driving (or driving illegaly), but that's we know you'll uphold the social construct of fixing the damages you cause. You don't need insurance to ride a bicycle, because it's not as easy to cause damages with a bicycle.

tialaramex 2y ago
Self insurance is no longer a thing in the UK. I think the administrative work of ensuring you capture increased bonds with inflation was judged unacceptable or something? So actual insurance is mandatory for people who operate motor vehicles on public roads

tialaramex 2y ago

The alternative is that cars are prohibited because we've decided not to insure the risk and their owners definitely can't be relied upon to just happen to be able to cover the costs when, inevitably, they are incurred. I'm OK with "all private motor vehicles are prohibited" but you need to be clear if that's what you want

rconti 2y ago
To play devil's advocate (and avoid the wrath of a certain lobby): We don't require knife insurance.
- chuckadams 2y ago
  Do you use your knives daily in a fashion that might injure bystanders? If so maybe you should be made to carry mandatory insurance.
  - kyleee 2y ago
    There has been discussion about piloting something like that in london
- gnarlynarwhal42 2y ago
  To extend your analogy slightly (while recognizing the actual meaning), if you go to an axe throwing venue (range) you dont have to carry insurance, but the range does carry insurance. If you go into the wilderness where axe throwing is allowed, and you maim or kill someone, you are personally liable to be sued or prosecuted. If you throw an axe where it is not allowed, you are also personally liable criminally and civilly.
thatcat 2y ago
Socializing the risk in this way is a regressive tax, there are clearly other alternative organizational structures.

multjoy 2y ago

The point of mandatory third party insurance is so that when you drive through the putative crowd of children waiting for the bus, the state and the victim's families are not on the hook for lifetime care costs which can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars per victim.

thatcat 2y ago
Idk seems like a get out of jail free card when you should probably be in debt for life, slaving away for your grave negligence, not let off the hook because you paid 100$ a month.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Let off the hook? That's what criminal penalties are for. Without mandatory insurance those victims wouldn't get anything.
  - thatcat 2y ago
    There can be other systems than private subsidized insurance for that, criminal penalties are rare. It would need to be like a dui for that to work.
- multjoy 2y ago
  That’s no good to the victim, is it.
  - thatcat 2y ago
    You can't really retroactively fix things with money, the idea that it "compensates" in some equal way is simply wrong. Money helps with the medical bills, disability, etc. It's better than nothing, but even if you pursue civil or criminal litigation it's not going make any one else take paying attention to controlling their heavy machinery more seriously. The perception of consequences diminishes, even though there are real consequences they seem like tail end risks since causing an accident doesn't typically result in jail time or civil litigation. I guess my hypothesis, based on a single observation is that people take extra risk because they have insurance and so feel like if they get in a wreck - it won't be that bad and they might get a new car.

flir 2y ago

"Obey the law" isn't part of the social contract? Hmm.

thatcat 2y ago
Law 209348032984: Pay some guy for dubiously priced services that are clearly a government function. If you don't do it you're a statistical thief who refused to pay for something that didn't happen. Seems like the law itself is violating the social contract.
- flir 2y ago
  I don't think "buy some car insurance if you're going to drive" is any more unreasonable than "buy a crash helmet if you're going to drive". But I can see how there would be a range of valid opinions on the matter. Some places do have a single government-owned insurance company: whatever they say you have to pay, you have to pay. No other options.

gnfargbl 2y ago

You can survive quite happily without a car, and thus without car insurance, in the vast majority of the UK. Vehicle ownership is not mandatory either in principle or practice.