There is nothing wrong with insurance … provided you can say no to it. Then it’s like any other thing you choose to buy.
Whether it makes sense to buy it – a subjective value judgment, by the way – isn’t the point. Exercise makes sense, too.
The point is – or should be – if insurance is something you want, or feel the need of – then you have the right to choose to buy it.
What you haven’t got is the right to force others to buy it – and thereby take away their free choice.
Insurance at gunpoint is dark and vicious. Anything that involves pointing guns at other people (who haven’t pointed a gun at you first) is necessarily a dark and evil thing. Someone – it doesn’t matter which specific individual does the wet work – is threatening to harm you unless you hand over money for something you do not wish to buy.
In ordinary language that’s a mugging.
That the mugger may give you something you don’t want in exchange for violently separating you from the contents of your wallet doesn’t change the nature of what has happened anymore than a rapist picking up the check for the hotel room makes what he did something less than rape.
Take away the element of consent, freely given – and what you’re left with is an assault.
Insurance at gunpoint is also an economic disaster. Not for the insurance company – which is really a mafia, because it uses force to coerce people to buy its services. It makes people an offer they can’t refuse. The insurance mafia makes a fortune. But the people who are forced to buy “coverage” get screwed.
Does this even need elaboration?
What happens to the price of anything when “customers” can’t elect not to buy that thing? Sure, there are different insurance “families.” You can “shop” the Gambinos (GEICO) or go with the Genovese (Allstate).
But you can’t say no.
The insurance mafia knows the value of this – which is why they got into bed with the government, which serves as their Luca Brasi. Without the threat of Luca, many of us – me among them – would be able to decline insurance altogether when the premiums became onerous, especially when they became so for no legitimate reason.
In that scenario, you get a letter from them one day notifying you that they have increased your rates because you got a ticket for “speeding” – a manufactured offense against a statute that caused no loss to anyone’s person or property. You call them up and tell them to cancel the policy unless they rescind the rate increase. Imagine the effect on the cost of insurance.
Which is why we are not allowed to say no.
But the most sinister aspect of mandatory car insurance is that it establishes the principle that forcing people to buy insurance generally is legitimate. Which is why we are now forced to buy health insurance, too.
And it is why, I am certain, a time will come when we are forced to buy home insurance (even if our home is completely paid-for) as well as life and gun insurance, too. There is a lot of money to be made – that is, taken at gunpoint.
And why not?
If we can be forced to buy car and health insurance is there any logically sound defense against being made to buy these and other kinds of insurance? What principle would work as a defense against such a proposal?
Never before in history have so many people been “covered.” It is no coincidence that so many of people are also living hand-to-mouth. Not because they have incurred losses. But because they are “covered.”
One of the reasons I am reluctant to buy a car to replace the truck my soon-to-be ex-wife now has is because it will mean paying got-damned insurance (and property taxes and registration fees). If I swap-buy the old motorcycle a friend of mine has offered to swap-buy for just a few hundred bucks, I can evade the insurance by hanging one of my other bikes’ tags on it. How many squealing enforcers could tell the difference between an ’83 Honda and an ’84 Honda?
It’s a chance I am willing to take. Feed ’em fish heads!
A huge blessing is that I was able to tell the got-damned home insurance mafia to chew coarse grains through loose teeth and cancel the policy – because I own my house. The bastards had arbitrarily jacked up my “coverage” to more than $1,500 annually. I’ve never filed a claim. I live on top of a mountain where there is no chance of flood damage, almost no chance of a tornado or hurricane; virtually no chance I will ever file a claim.
Yet they wanted $1,500 annually – sure to go up again at some point for no legitimate reason.
Feed ’em fish heads!
I cancelled the policy and the feeling was orgiastic. Better than most sex I’ve had. That was seven years ago. I have already saved nearly $11,000! That amounts to the cost of a brand-new 50 year roof, with top-of-the-line architectural shingles. Something of tangible value to me. Unlike “coverage.”
If the egregious, tyrannical property taxes on the house went away I could live comfortably on $1,000 a month, saving a couple hundred each month, probably.
But we can’t have financial independence – that is, liberty. Much too dangerous… to the powers that be. We’d have less need of them and their plans.
That’s the wormy core of this insurance-at-gunpoint business. To keep us toiling, in order to keep on paying. The burden of insurance and taxes is so heavy that most people must work, until they can no longer physically work. Which would be okay if that’s what they wanted to do – and were doing it for their own benefit, or to benefit their families.
Instead, they – we – are forced to work like oxen for the benefit of parasites with guns and the weight of the government behind them. And yet, oxen are powerful beasts when roused to anger.
Perhaps this rant will trigger something within a few.
If you have had it with control freak Clovers, Goo-guhl, diversity mongers and like contrarian, liberty-minded media, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depends on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
We are required to have insurance for reasons other than politicians being bought or influenced by the insurance mafia. It’s because politicians don’t have the balls to enforce judgements. If some crackhead ghetto rat/trailer scum deadbeat broadsides my wife and puts her in a wheel chair he may be fined or jailed for a short time for not having insurance but you can’t get blood from a turnip. At least not with the pansy ass politicians we have today. To my way of thinking the crackhead should be doing the Cool Hand Luke thing and working off his debt. But politicians would take too much heat from pansy asses that would cry “Slavery”! Especially if the chain gang didn’t have the exact racial balance that the pansy asses thought was the fair share.
Hi Paul,
I’m with you. People should be held accountable for what they do. But it’s wrong to hold them accountable for what others do. Even more so for what “someone” might do.
The bottom line, as is invariably true, is that insurance is mandatory because it confers money and power on those who make it mandatory.
“Safety” is merely the window dressing.
It’s very simple – if I am forced to do it, in this example, buy insurance via force of government, at the point of a gun, it is immoral. For the liberty impaired – forcing me to buy insurance by government fiat – BAD! Leaving me alone to make my own decisions – GOOD!
For those of you who pay auto insurance…
Highly unlikely but certainly feasible…If everyone with auto insurance got in a wreck tomorrow, half causing the accidents and the other half being the victims (Same concept could be applied to health and homes.), what do you suppose the actions of those insuring those policies, might be, the day after? For those who “get it”, you’ll realize that “insurance” is ultimately a scam, just like fiat currency; mathematically doomed to eventually fail. And it’s “FEAR” based, i.e. do what we tell you to do OR ELSE, i.e. a way to control the masses to do as they are told.
I was going to ask, but saw my answer in other comments you responded to. It appears you are ideologically committed enough that you accept the notion that an uninsured clown could T-Bone you at an intersection and put you in a wheel chair for life and you would get no compensation for your losses because he had neither insurance nor attachable assets.
Here in Virginia the uninsured motorist fee does go to a state fund for such contingencies which would provide you some compensation. It’s not like insurance though; the state pays you and then pulls the responsible party’s license and registration forever until such time as they reimburse the state for its expenses.
Some states call mandatory car insurance a “financial responsibility” law. I can’t quite accept the libertarian idea that liability insurance should be an option. Nobody in their right mind would ever buy it if they literally had nothing to lose from a lawsuit. Probably half the population of this country is financially destitute enough that they’re immune to judgments and wouldn’t even bother showing up in court if sued. Go ahead and get your default judgment and see what you’ll get out of it…
Go tto agree Erik, and insurance is mandated in Ala., in Fla they have a “no fault” law. One man’s daughter was hit by uninsured person in my city, father had to pay damages to car. Person was not injured. Lic. may have been suspended or jail time for uninsured. Now with all this cell phone texting, etc. highways, streets are like war zones. I get out early and run errands, less traffic. We don’t go anywhere after dark, no reason to get out. Those with mortgages are forced to have homeowners to protect the bank, it is tacked to your house payments plus, a separate insurance pol. (escrow) to pay off the balance if the homeowner dies. Ins. co’s like the drug co.’s are a necessary evil.
Hi Laura,
I have no issue with home insurance being mandatory when the home hasn’t been paid for; in that case, the lender/bank has every right to require surety against loss.
But if the house is paid for, then the owner has every right to skip insurance.
Same with car insurance, same with health.
That a loss might occur is not a moral justification for requiring insurance.
Freedom (liberty) means accepting risk; in particular, other people’s right to weigh risk for themselves.
You can argue this isn’t acceptable – but then you’re arguing for what we have: a no longer free country.
eric, just one small point. Back before auto insurance was mandatory the cost of adding uninsured motorists, was only a dollar or two. I always, since I own shit and have something to lose and don’t go by several aliases as illegal aliens and the Hispanic community is somehow allowed to do to this very day, I wanted to CMA. It wasn’t some sort of epidemic but not uncommon enough for people like this to have a wreck and walk away, move away if they were pursued(I knew of it to happen), assume another name and live with in a house with 20 OTHER members of their family.
In my part of the world, just mention some Hispanic person and every other Hispanic in the room will say “Oh, he/she’s my cousin”. No shit Sherlock, I can trace people I’ve never met back to being a cousin. Hell, we’re all from a dozen sources on the entire earth but I and others who don’t live 20 to a house don’t consider everybody who is white to be my cousin although technically they are. I can go back in the family tree and fairly much prove anybody I have a wreck with is going to be my cousin. I’ve known people who got out of a speeding ticket from the DPS by discussing where they were from and who they knew and who they were kin to and damned if it ain’t true, they are your cousin.
So I always bought the uninsured motorist and let that sleeping dog lie and hope I’d never need it. Once mandatory insurance came into effect, then my insurance bill went out of sight. We had 7 vehicles, two cars and five pickups when it came into effect. It wasn’t long till I got rid of a car and a pickup just like I told the wife who said it wasn’t going to raise our rates. Shit Ronnie, that’s what mandatory anything always does and that was the entire point of mandatory insurance, a big arm of banking.
We paid 14.5% interest on our mortgage back when the chimpanzee of class b movies was in office. He was going to straighten this country out and mainly what he did was drive everybody into debt. Fuck Ronald Reagan and all the Nixon throwoffs who did his dirty work while he was completely oblivious to what was going on. But he wasn’t oblivious to what was going on when he passed the first gun control bill for the everyday man when he was guv of Ca. to protect his whitey buddies who wanted to keep the black man down. It didn’t take long for the Clintonista bunch to push through a Republican gun control bill and gladly take credit for it. Clinton was the extension of the Republican party into the Democratic part and never the twain shall meet went away completely to the tune of never we shall disagree in back rooms and only use key words to get our particular vote.
How people don’t see the duopolous party(s)of this country for what they are is a mystery to me. I guess it’s just too damn much trouble to think about and consider they’re getting screwed no matter who gets a vote. Rant over…….but not forgotten by me and I hope I can forget it before bedtime……whenever that might be. Dammit, yall got me mad. I’m reminded of the old joke about the airplane needing to lose weight to stay in the air.
“The airplane kept losing altitude – the pilot had jettisoned everything he could and the plane still kept going down. He came on the intercom.
“WE need a volunteer to jump out of the plane; otherwise we will all die. We have to lighten the load.”
The Englishman jumps up. “God save the Queen!” He jumps; plummets to his death. The plane still loses altitude.
The pilot says. “We need another person to jump to lighten the load still more.”
The Frenchman runs to the door. “Vive La France.” He plummets to his death.
“If one more person jumps we will be saved,” the pilot yells into the intercom.
The Texan jumps up, runs to the door, grabs a couple of Mexicans and throws them out.
“Remember the Alamo,” he yells.”
Hi Erik,
Certainly. I am willing to accept that risk as the price of my liberty – which no one has the right to take away from me because they deem my decision about my risk “too risky.”
Your assumption is that the only method to get you coverage is mandated car insurance for all and that it is effective in stopping deadbeats. Both are false. I can and do buy uninsured driver insurance on my own policy, for a pittance PRIOR to mandated insurance. I have also repeatedly witnessed uninsured motorists not only NOT arrested, but allowed to go on and told by the officer the deadbeat was not worth pursuing. And yes in each case the offender was a “victim” group.
Government does not own the roads, roads are public right of ways, see excert from Department of Transportation: “Streets and sidewalks are for everyone’s use. They add value to private property by providing access to the property and a way to get to other places in the city.
When property is developed, property owners dedicate part of the land as “public right-of-way” for streets, sidewalks, utilities and similar public uses.
What some property owners do not realize is that they are responsible for maintaining part of the right-of-way next to their property, including the sidewalk and planting strip, or the roadway shoulder if unimproved. Property owners are also responsible for maintaining unpaved alleys next to their property.”
In other words, your land/property goes to the center of the road.
As far as INSURANCE goes, it is a form of TAX whether it is mandated or not, if you dig deep enough you will find that the government owns stock in these companies and that ownership is hidden from public view.
Also property tax is only for commercial property and not for private homes not used for commerce. You will have to dig deep to see how they have your property classified, there will be a code/number on your property tax statement. That code/number will show they have your land/property listed as some business doing commerce. This is not really that complicated to do and could save you lots. you will have to do a lot of research.
Whoops! I don’t know what State you live in, but in VA Private Property is most definitely TAXED! VA allows the towns and counties to tax ALL real-estate, regardless of its use. And, if you live in a town in VA you WILL be taxed on your real-estate by the the town AND the county BOTH! I owned a house in Blacksburg, and my shop in Christiansburg. I got 4 tax bills annually, 2 for each property (1 from each town and 2 from the same county for each property). Failure to pay any of those bills will get you a foreclosure notice, even if the properties are already paid off. My best solution was to sell the house to pay off other debts, and cut my property taxes down to 2 extortion notices per year, instead of 4. I now live in my shop, and have significantly cut my commute to work, haha!
gtc,A man after my own heart. Before we were robbed of everything we were about to build another barn and put rooms in it as needed. A kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedroom. As we made money we intended one room at a time or maybe a couple. When I build a barn I use two sides to install hot and cold water lines and sewer lines to plus a drain line for power washing. I have never understood people who live without an air compressor. There’s rarely a day goes by mine isn’t used.
Remember, property ownership (and NAP) is at the core of libertarianism. Unfortunately, since the government owns most of the roads, they can make as many foolish laws as they want about using them.
Hi Eric,
Yes, but the government has also effectively forced us to use only government roads – and to pay for them, too. Even if you never used a government road, you have no choice about paying motor fuels taxes.
Therefore, it isn’t the same as a private owner setting terms and conditions – which a person is free to accept or not.
I certainly agree with you, but thought it was worth pointing out.
The government owns the roads? No, they do not! I want them to show me (I am from the Show-Me state) the bill of sale from the sellers for all of that land! I want to see the bill of sale that Englands king received when he declared the new world to be his property to sell to wealthy and corrupt land speculators! Just because a thief can steal something does not mean that he is the legitemate owner of it!
Do we Americans really have 20+ trillion dollars of federal government debt? Hell no!!! I never signed any contract allowing anyone else to make loans which benefits corrupt banksters and the oligarchy at my life long expense! Any trickery of my signing anything such as a SSN document or a drivers license constitutes a fraud! We can stop this crap if enough of us has the balls to publicly point out these facts!
Hi Brian,
Agreed – in principle.
But the government does control the roads and so has effective ownership. We are effectively forced to use them and to pay for them. So, in the context of the conversation we’ve been having, there isn’t (my opinion) a moral wrong in evading the government’s “terms and conditions.”
I’m not so sure. If some clown plows into me and wrecks my car (and maybe my body) I sure as Hades want him to have liability insurance. What a nightmare it would be to find out that the perp has no insurance, no income, and no property as sometimes happens. I, the aggrieved party, am then royally screwed. I think that’s the point of liability insurance–to make the other party whole.
Hi Ross,
Yes, I get that. Liberty is messy that way. It involves accepting risk.
For me that is preferable to the certainty of coercive collectivism.
Keep in mind, too, that principles and precedents matter. If we accept this one form, others inevitably will rain down. I reiterate: If it is legitimate to force people to buy car/health insurance on the basis of the “might cause harm” standard and because “society” might bear the costs of such harm, then on what basis would you argue against also requiring that everyone who has a gun be required to buy specific insurance to “cover” harm they might cause? How about life and home insurance (even when the home is paid for)?
Why not insurance for… everything that could conceivably result in harm to “someone”?
“Why not insurance for… everything?”
But isn’t that basically what gunvermin claims to be? And forces us to pay for?
PS: As has already been pointed out several times, mandatory insurance laws do not prevent “some clown” from plowing into you without insurance any more than “gun control” prevents thugs from shooting you dead with their illegal gun.
Right?
Here in VA, it is legal to drive without insurance – provided you pay the state $500. Think about that one…
It’s easy to fall for the false promise of “security” – in exchange for our liberty and our money.
Don’t make that mistake!
Eric: I think you’re wrong on that one. Here’s the way I believe it to work: That $500 is when you get registration stickers for your car. If you don’t have ins, you pay the $500 and can get the sticker. Yes, the defacto thing is once you have your sticker affixed, you can avoid this scrutiny from the cops, so I get that. I think the $500 may be for an antique car that doesn’t need ins, b/c it’s only allowed to drive 500 miles a year?
Hi Tom,
In VA, there is what’s called the Uninsured Motorist Fee. Pay the $500 and you can legally drive without insurance coverage. It is not limited to antique vehicles or any such. It’s a “legal” way for people to drive without having to buy insurance. The state just wants its money.
Just like the insurance mafia.
It’s the opposite in my home state of PA. If your “coverage” ever lapses, you are legally required to TURN IN YOUR LICENSE PLATES. That’s what they warn you about every year at registration renewal time (where you are also required to show proof of “coverage”). It’s a goddamn racket.
However, for over a decade (late 80’s thru entire 90’s), before the interwebs were ubiquitous, I mastered something called Photoshop, with which I simply “updated” my insurance certificate, in the event I ever got pulled over for a manufactured infraction. Can’t really get away with that anymore, but those were glorious times for those with limited means, but tech savvy.
Hi Ross,
In addition to Eric’s point, it is not clear that there would be more uninsured motorists on the road absent the mandate. Insurance rates would likely fall in a non coerced market. This may encourage lower income drivers who want insurance, but really can’t afford it, to become covered.
Jeremy
Jeremy, a Tx. judge recently said he had no problem with jailing and increasing jail time for those who were unable to pay for various crap like the reimbursement drives with DWI’s have to pay or go to prison. Never mind that them not paying and going to prison only exacerbates problems for them and the taxpayer also. The just us system doesn’t want to be denied. Now there is a group(I’ve signed their petition)to not allow occifers of the lawless to arrest motorists for non-jailable offenses. Of course the occifers who do this view any thing they have in mind to be jailable offense.
Hi Ross,
Absent the government fatwa to buy insurance for each vehicle you own even though you can only drive one vehicle at a time; you could probably buy insurance that covers you personally. This would mean that you are covered no matter what you are driving at the moment or who is at fault in any given situation, or whatever house you are presently residing in. Your insurance policy would cover _you_ instead of a single property or a given vehicle. The person who chooses to not pay for insurance will have to bear the full cost of a totaled car or a burned down house. If the uninsured person is a victim of bad luck rather than carelessness; then he will be able to get financial help from untaxed people who know him or charitable organizations.
Exactly, Brian!
I actually tried to find a “catastrophic loss” home policy with a very high deductible (like $20k) that would only cover a … catastrophic loss. Which is what insurance is supposed to be all about. Coverage that applies only in the event of a rare, highly unlikely event that will probably never happen, so the company will probably never have to pay out a cent. Ergo, coverage ought to be inexpensive.
I would pay say $200 annually for such a policy – but such a policy does not exist.
The only policy that does exist is the one that is a certain money loser for me.
Which is why insurance is a scam.
Obamacare made catastrophic medical insurance illegal. Problem is, the premiums are now so high people are ending up with $5,000 deductibles anyway. The system is near collapse per that old sci-fi story “positive feedback”
http://hell.pl/szymon/Baen/1635%20The%20Eastern%20Front/Prescription%20for%20Chaos/1416591435__13.htm
except it won’t collapse in a good way like in the story.
BrentP,
Thanks for the story link and the terms–“Positive feedback” ; “Negative feedback”
Wouldn’t individuals concerned about clowns plowing into them be able to insure themselves and their property against such a loss? If not, it seems like a great opportunity for an entrepreneur to make some money.
The minimum liability coverage mandated ranges from state to state between 25k policy limit to 100k policy limit injury/death to more than 1 person and between 5k and 25k policy limit for property damage. If some clown with minimum insurance plows into your brand new Audi q7, totals it, breaks your arm, breaks your passengers leg, then you’re going to be in the hole even after obtaining the policy limit from the insured clown, and that’s assuming you don’t factor in general damages (pain & suffering) and lost wages.
Mandatory insurance is a scam. The minimum coverage limits are insubstantial. The premiums keep going up. People still end up getting their lives and property destroyed by uninsured/underinsured motorists.
Excellent points, Poodris – especially in re the minimums. They are, indeed, insufficient to “cover” a major loss – yet (as you note) premiums continue to increase.
And – as you also note – a person fearful of the risk of “some clown” can self-insure against such. It’s his fear; why is it someone else’s obligation to pay to assuage it? Particularly if that person hasn’t injured him in any way?
There is a good reason to require people to buy (liability) insurance: it allows the civil legal system to work. If everyone must have liability insurance then suing allows people to be compensated for damages. It allows private parties (insurance companies) to punish unnecessary risks. Good luck getting insurance if you are likely to get sued because your rickety building is about to collapse or because you have a drinking and driving problem or because you shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
Now people should simply have to have liability insurance in general not car insurance, health insurance, etc.
Hi Halting,
I disagree –
First, mandatory insurance presumes harm will be caused; so you are arguing that people be punished (forced to buy insurance) even though they’ve incurred no loss/caused no harm to anyone. This – presumptive guilt – is immoral.
You speak about losses.
Well, I’ve been incurring losses for 30-plus years now – in the form of mandatory insurance payments. Yet I have not caused any harm to anyone. What about my losses? Why is it ok to take my money for harms I haven’t caused? Isn’t that worse than you not being compensated for harms actually caused by someone?
Second, your argument presumes that if harm is caused, the party who caused the harm will be able to use the system – that is, the government – to transfer the costs onto other people. This is a collectivist premise that I reject.
Instead, I argue that in a free society, people have the right to assume risks. They also have the obligation to accept any negative consequences – and have no right to transfer the burden onto others using coercive means.
Note that this would also “allow the civil legal system to work.” There is no reason why a person who is the cause of injury to you or your property cannot be required to make you whole. A court could, for example, order payment and the payment either provided by the guilty party in cash, wage garnishment or by a promissory note tied to property of his or by (in extremis) him having to “work it off.”
Point being: He owes you.
But no one else does. Thus, you have no moral right to demand that others who’ve not harmed you in any way spend money on insurance because you fear they might harm you.
“Why is it ok to take my money for harms I haven’t caused?”
In a nice world, we’d only require repayment for actual harms. However, there are limits to how much you can punish someone. If someone drinks and drives and kills my wife and themselves the we can’t punish them, they are dead. There is also a good chance that they are dead or severely injured too. As a result it is necessary to punish people for risks that can have consequences that are unpunished. This is why drunk driving laws make sense. We can’t punish the drinker in many situations where their risks cause harm to others so we punish them for their risks. Requiring liability insurance just takes this policy, generalizes it, and shifts the evaluation of the risks to private parties instead of government.
Hi Halting,
Your argument boils down to: Because someone might do you injury, everyone must be done injury.
It is why we live in an increasingly authoritarian society.
In a free society, there is acceptance of the possibility of risk – in exchange for the certainty that the liberties of the people will be respected.
Your argument also presumes that most people are irresponsible – the Clover premise. I disagree. I think most people are responsible and am tired of being punished because I am presumed to be irresponsible by people such as yourself.
Also, if individual people were held individually responsible for harms they cause (but not harms caused by others) individuals would have an incentive to act responsibly. But what happens when that incentive is taken away or much reduced, as by “spreading out” risk – and costs – onto “society”?
Additionally: If insurance were not mandatory, it would cost less. One could choose to buy a policy that only covered a catastrophic loss in at-fault scenario – which for a a competent/responsible driver is an extremely unlikely scenario (I’ve not filed a claim or had one filed against me in 30 years of driving). Such a policy would be inexpensive – at most maybe $100 a year, because it would be based on the almost-nil chance of the company ever having to pay a claim.
I would freely buy such a policy because I am a responsible person.
But I resent having to buy multiple policies for coverage I do not need or want because Clovers worry I might injure them or their property… notwithstanding 30 years of not having done so.
The only thing that the liability insurance needs to cover is EXACTLY the scenarios where you would not be able to be appropriately compensate the victim without it!
On the contrary, VA State Liability Minimum Coverage Stipulations are far less than the premiums I have paid over the last 10 years, and are negligible compared to the 35 years of my premiums without having any liability related claims. In short, the insurance coverage I am legally forced to carry, is far less than what I have been fleeced for in the way of premiums. Forced purchase of goods and services is also one of the things the US Constitution is “supposed” to protect us from. This very issue went to the US Supreme court, where it was decided that fines incurred for not buying healthcare insurance were deemed as Taxes, and therefore could only be collected from Tax Returns. The same, however, has not been ruled for auto insurance, primarily because automobiles are classified as a luxury, or a commodity and not as a necessity. Of course, tell that to anyone who would otherwise have to walk to work every day regardless of distance, or weather.
Hi Halting,
The moral issue here (again) is forcing people who’ve not caused you or anyone else any harm whatsoever to pay money (a harm to them) because you worry they might cause you harm.
Do you grok the danger of that principle?
That principle is why we now have Obamacare. And it will by why we’re forced to buy other forms of insurance, too.
You can either accept liberty – which comes with certain risks – or you can demand “security” and the certainty of not-liberty.
PS: As others have already pointed out, liability minimums do not “cover” all losses and if insurance were not the con that it is – forced upon us – it would cost less and coverage would be better.
If you disagree, you’ll have to explain how forcing people to buy something (anything) lowers the cost of that item. Have health care costs gone down since Obamacare?
Insurance is fine when it covers catastrophic loss. But when it’s used for almost every little thing – and everyone is forced to buy it – what you end up with is a system that makes people pay through the nose to be covered.
My ex-wife just got a bill for her “coverage” on the used Toyota Corolla she recently bought. Guess how much? Preface: She is in her mid-40s, no accidents/claims, no tickets, excellent credit.
Almost $500 for six months.
Work the math.
Yes, one can say “NO” to auto insurance, easily. I did, and haven’t looked back, since. How do I get away with it? Three ways:
I carry a “fake” auto insurance card which can easily be made up (Progressive Insurance). (I once got pulled over twic, for a moving violation “warning” and a brake light out, and in both cases, handed my license, registration and fake insurance card to the officer, and the cop didn’t flinch, and neither did I)
and
Register vehicle in state where proof of auto insurance is not required for renewing license tabs.
and
I always drive defensively, i.e. drive at the speed limit and follow all directions.
I’m I paranoid? Not at all. Could I get in a wreck? Yes. Anything is possible. If I did, I’d make sure of at least one thing: not to be the one negligent. That’s the kicker. That way I’m not morally obligated, financially speaking, they are.
Been driving this way since the early 80’s when I realized the whole Insurance world was a scam.
I’ve looked back at the money I’ve been able to save, rather than support a corrupt system, and it was enough to purchase a new BMW R1200GSA, with all the bells and whistles, ;-).
Excuse my French, but FUCK that system.
Hi European,
Excellent!
And, me too.
Genug already. It is time to stop step n’ fetching and evade/avoid to the extent it is feasible.
I am debating dropping “coverage” on my old muscle car, which sees at most a few hundred miles of driving each year. The risk of loss is virtually nil and the risk of liability even less. Yet I have been paying out about $300 annually for a full coverage policy. I’ve had the car for 25 years. That comes to about $7,500 flushed down the toilet. I could have had the car properly repainted for that. Or bought a Tremec five speed for it and had plenty of cash left over.
Insurance is sick and evil.
Why would you ever buy anything more than liability insurance for any paid-for vehicle (unless you couldn’t bear the loss)?
Hi Tall,
With a 40-year-old car, it’s hard to get regular liability-only coverage. And if it’s a 40-year-old muscle car, the mafia will charge you as much for liability-only as I have to pay for a full-coverage antique vehicle policy.
eric, that varies state by state too. Two years ago Tx. followed suit by other nanny states requiring insurance for an inspection sticker and both for registration. They left no stone unturned. Everybody got paid up front before a tire rolls.
At the same time they eliminated windshield stickers for commercial vehicles. That simply gives anyone with a bad and gun “lawful” reason to stop any commercial vehicle to simply check their registration, insurance and inspection. Sweet meat for Tx. and other govt. workers, not so sweet for people simply trying to make a living……knowing that guy with a badge in a little town can stop and harass you just on the whim of his cool day IQ.
I’d like to add this extra point to both my initial response and your reply to mine, Eric. As we sow, so shall we reap. What we “put out” comes back to us 10 fold.
If one is angry and resentful (directly or indirectly) towards the world around oneself, then that will come directly back to oneself. It’s the nature of give and take. If one does ones best to treat others with respect and dignity, then, more often than not, one will get that back. Drive with great care for those around oneself, always adhering to traffic laws, and, treating other drivers respectfully and “magically”, subtle forces of creation watch over and keep order in front and in the rear view mirror.
It works, it really does, as long as one doesn’t take this “Cosmic Law” for granted.
Drive with compassion and love in the heart, as if everyone around you is your mother and they may have their small issues, but they mean well. Just give them their space and take some of that money you save from not supporting a corrupt system by supporting a life-supporting charity; one that you freely choice to embrace, rather than forced to. That’s how Cosmic Law works, and supports.
Off the soap box now.
I applaud your success in faking an insurance card. Unfortunately, in this Commonwealth of VA (i.e. Mafioso State), Insurance Companies tattle on you to DMV, and DMV does routine insurance checks on all registered vehicles. VA law now required all insurance companies licensed to sell in VA to register on the DMV network to enable this DMV Spying Crap. And the cops will routinely run plates on their laptops when they are bored while sitting and driving in traffic. Even Towns and Counties in VA legally access the DMV network to send yearly tax bills to you, even if you don’t own said vehicle any longer. In which case you have to contact the tax offices and inform them, sometimes every year, that you no longer own that vehicle. VA, Mass, PA, (all 3 Mafioso Commonwealths) are getting nastier and greedier every year. Just remember the “Commonwealth Motto: What is ours is ours, and what is yours is ours.”
Hi Eric:
Greet article – maybe your best.
Can I borrow your “a rapist picking up the check for the hotel room makes what he did something less than rape” analogy for an opportune time in the future?
3 things about insurance:
1) Insurers hire statisticians. They calculate the probability of a claim and then charge a premium proportional to this probability – plus a generous “fudge factor” – and handsome profit with unreal retirement benefits to top it all off. They are the house. We can’t win. Government forbids private “gambling” while forcing us all to gamble in a 2 sure loss “games” our entire lives.
2) Make any emotional argument you want: A health insurance company can not “cover” pre-existing conditions any more than a house insurance company can cover a house that is already burned to the ground or a car insurance company can “cover” a car that is already totaled. A “pre-existing condition” to a statistician in an insurance company is nothing more than a 100% probability of a major claim.
3) Many to most of these insurance companies have their premiums invested in “safe” investments like government bonds. Some of these companies have been forecasting 5-8% YOY growth. What have government bonds been paying the last 10 years? Close to NOTHING. These insurance mafia fuckers are going to fuck us even harder when we have to bail their criminal asses out when a few claims outside of normal makes them bankrupt. You know they are TBTF. You know it. I know it. There will be bailouts.
Municipal, state, and federal pensions are all the same boat. All TBTF.
I am angry
Have a great weekend
Thank you, Blake! 🙂
And, of course you may borrow at will. Nothing’s new under the sun, really. Just re-ordered!
So says from the same people who think drink-driving should be legal. The humor of Libertarians is they saying some about not doing harm but then it’s up the Libertarian to figure out when and where the “harm” occurs.
“it’s up the Libertarian to figure out when and where the ‘harm’ occurs.”
Not quite. It is usually obvious. If not, maybe you need to rethink your definition of ‘harm.’
On the other hand, there is always Bastiat’s ‘thing not seen.’ But I don’t think that’s what Clover Gil has in mind,
Did you notice that he used the term “drink-driving”, and not drunk-driving, dui, or dwi? I may be mistaken, but i suspect Clover Gil is from the UK? That would make him a “subject”, and not an autonomous citizen. Even so, I have seen some Brits who do understand and believe in personal autonomy, even if they don’t know it themselves. I saw a dash-cam of a 20-something Brit getting pulled by a constable who was alerted to this driver’s lack of insurance via their license plate spy-scanners. The young man had done nothing to anyone, and was driving responsibly and was sober. The Constable performed an illegal (Well, illegal here, not there) search of the car and withdrew a 24″ 16 Oz. “souvenir baseball bat”. Fearing that this must be something illegal, considering the constable’s demeanor, the young man tried to act casual and stated it was in the car for self-defense. He was immediately arrested and had his car impounded for “possession of a defensive weapon”!
Even though he guessed the constable might accuse him of having a concealed weapon (it was buried under clothes and other junk in the back seat), he did not think it would be a crime to defend himself. Turns out, interestingly, UK Subjects may not defend themselves. Self defense in the UK is only legal the the form of “running away”, or running for the protection of a constable. Of course, here in our “land of the not-so-free” if you or I were to run away from, or towards our “constables” we would almost certainly be shot dead in a heroic act of “self defense”, so go figure. Once you start having your civil liberties and human rights fucked with, your damned if you “do” and damned if you “don’t”. Nice.
I remember what is was like to see my parents as strong, and virtually untouchable independent, productive citizens. And I would always dream of the responsibilities and rewards awaiting me when I was finally an adult in their world. Well, now I am an independent, responsible adult, and that world has disappeared, and it leaves me to wonder just who the hell I should strangle for stealing it from us?
Philip asked:
“I remember what is was like to see my parents as strong, and virtually untouchable independent, productive citizens. And I would always dream of the responsibilities and rewards awaiting me when I was finally an adult in their world. Well, now I am an independent, responsible adult, and that world has disappeared, and it leaves me to wonder just who the hell I should strangle for stealing it from us?”
My answer:
“Yes.”
If it breathes, it’s a part of the problem…
But you know my reasoning already.
> But I don’t think that’s what Clover Gil has in mind,
Hello Philip. I’m leaning more and more to the word, “snowflake”. I think it describes this type of person better. After-all, apply a little heat (logic to their argument) and they melt like a snowflake.
You again? Wandeirng aimlessly through the blogs and feeds to make inane and baseless posts again, I see.
Well, there are some who can personally bear the expense of a loss, and also drive so carefully they never incur a loss. In two million miles I’ve never been the cause of any harm to any other vehicle or person or property whilst I was driving.
California’s laws on car insurance used to be just fine… IF you are in a wreck, and IF you are at fault, and IF damage is done to person or thing, and IF you cannot pay or otherwise compensate for the damage, THEN you need insurance. IF you don’t have it, the registration on your car is cancelled until you pay it off. So you may keep possession of the car, but cannot drive, rent, sell, or otherwise dispose of it.
THese days the only drivers in California who don’t “need” car insurance are those here illegally. Somehow they don’t seem to face any consequences of note when (not if) they cause a crash and do harm. And no, its not the one causing the crash that judges what is harm. It is the one harmed… one more lie of yours.
You finally said the magic word – illegals. The underclass imported from outside the system or allowed to enter without going through the legal process and not held to the same standards as “citizens”. These illegals have no insurance, which would put them into the system, yet by implied governmental privilege and quotas are given preferential treatment over citizens. They purchase a vehicle (new or used, don’t ask me how, I guess they show up with under-the-table cash at a dealer or private owner), then run that vehicle into the ground without state-mandated maintenance or tags or license. When they get into an accident, they run away – as they would do back in their home country, because of the corruption of law enforcement and their judicial system. Leaving the legal insurance payer(s) holding the bag.
So all these “no fault” insurance clauses on the citizenry is because they are also paying for the undeclared underclass. But that is rarely (if ever) reported on the news, or in insurance policies, or statistics.
For the illegals, it’s a great system – sneak into the country, live like an American with a brand-new vehicle (compared to home), and if you get into an accident, run away quick. The worse that could happen is for them to be deported – and just return over the border a few months later. These illegals are never held accountable with property forfeiture the way the citizenry is.
Used to be, long ago, before “mandatory insurance” that one simply needed to prove “financial responsibility”, and then only in the event of a major collision, where there are cops and ambulances involved. This could take the form of liability coverage, more reasonably priced back then, or, if you were wealthier, simply show you had sufficient liquid cash/investments to cover any potential damage you caused, determined by a civil court. That requirement was rather high ($50k or so in today’s money), but many could afford to do that.
But then, years later, I learned Photoshop. 😉
Clover,
Again, you demonstrate that you’re either not capable of making a reasoned, fact-based argument or are not bright enough (or honest enough) to do so.
I have never defended drunk driving. I have argued that the definition of “drunk” is both arbitrary and unreasonable. A driver whose actual driving cannot be faulted can be convicted of “drunk” driving in many states on the basis of as little as a .04 BAC (in the case of those under age 21, any alcohol traces whatsoever are sufficient under “zero tolerance” laws).
Facts, Clover – which seem not to matter to you.
As far as ” it’s up the Libertarian to figure out when and where the “harm” occurs…”
Sigh. What part of “tangible harm” is incomprehensible to you? If a tangible harm to property or person is demonstrated then harm has been proved. QED.
Is it that difficult for you?
Really?
I have no health insurance, cancelled it all in 2014. My net income is at the poverty level, but the IRS may still fine me this year for not “insuring” my body. Screw them! The worst they can do is with-hold my tax Federal Tax refund, money they already stole throughout the year. Let them have it, they would use some other excuse to keep it eventually anyway. I am forced to buy shop Liability Insurance by the “Commonwealth”, and of course, auto and motorcycle insurance. But the insurance companies actually refuse to insure my household property because I live on my business property, go figure. Nor will the shop policy cover any of my personal property, their game – their rules – their advantage – My Money.
It’s like being forced to vacation in Las Vegas, and not being allowed to leave until your in debt up to your eyeballs! Insurance is the biggest white-collar extortion crime ever conceived, and forced on us with our own tax dollars. I hope to live as long as possible so as to deny those ass-wipes as much of my hard-earned income as possible. I want to be the sheep with mange, rabies, and fangs; the one they are forced to look at but can’t get any fleece from, nor even bother trying to for fear of catching a disease.
Auto insurance gets worse here in Florida. Not only forced to have “insurance” but forced to buy a certain kind of insurance – “no-fault”. Which has elicited a tsunami of fake accidents/claims.
“Florida is a “No-Fault” Car Insurance State. Florida follows a “no-fault” when it comes to the payment of auto insurance claims after a car accident. In a no-fault state, drivers are required to carry auto insurance that pays personal injury protection, or PIP, benefits.”
I came to the epiphany a while ago, due to listening to Catherine Austin Fitts, that if you are paying, forced to pay, insurance that you can never make a claim on (see Obamacare and most insurance companies lacking honor and common sense), then you are paying rent.
The topic came up when Catherine Austin Fitts found out many cities have flood insurance on their public buildings, paid for by the taxpayer, that go to the ultra-large insurance companies. Even high-ranking public “servants” are unaware of this scam, even as unfunded mandates force them to keep raising taxes on their citizens.
But the principle applies across the board – unmarried, childless people paying for public schools, maternity clauses on their health insurance; property taxes that include firefighter rates; homeowners being charged for separating their trash into different-color bins “rented” from the trash company.
We’re being taken from every angle possible.
Hi Eric
A couple weeks ago you pointed me to the VA DMV site (I had a question re: antique plates). Not sure what to make of it, but while perusing that site, I noticed that you can forego auto insurance in Virginia if you pay the state 500 bucks a year! Can’t quite wrap my head around how the state can tell us that we need insurance to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens, but if we give money to the government instead, well then, maybe that protection isn’t so necessary after all?!
Hi VZ,
Yup. It shows what’s it’s all about… money (and control).
Anyone who thinks otherwise is simple or ‘tetched in the head.
It’s disgusting and shameful. Between autos, home and health insurance, about 20% of of my (after tax!) income goes to insurance companies. Obviously I’ve received something back on the health, but in 45 years of driving & 40 years of owning a home, I’ve never made a single claim. Not one f’in nickel have I ever gotten back from them, but my premiums go up every single year.
I can relate to that, we’ve lived in this house for over 40 years paying those premiums year after year probably added up to what I originally paid for the house. I filed my one and only claim a couple of years ago after severe water damage from the giant snowstorms that buried everything in this area that winter. The insurance company actually paid the claim, most likely because lots of people were in the same boat and there was heavy media scrutiny of the situation. A few months later comes a letter informing us they will not be renewing our policy because our house wasn’t properly constructed to prevent ice dams. For the record this house was built in 1865, a Victorian with a slate roof and twelve foot ceilings; somehow that didn’t discourage them from collecting premiums for the past 40 years.
I have to admit it’s a great racket, keep paying them but don’t dare try to make them pay. Kind of a roach motel variant – “you can check(pay) in but never check(get payed) out”. Fortunately the house has no mortgage so I don’t require insurance but our agency managed to find us a liability policy at a reasonable rate in case some douchebag ever tries to sue me for some imaginary injury, the only thing I live in fear of. House prices are so ridiculously inflated here and there’s no lack of shysters who think they’ve won the lottery if they can make a claim against someone with assets. Just one more of many reasons we need to get out of here, if only I could decide to where ?
I feel ya, Mike. I think we had this conversation before. Just don’t come to FL! Believe it or not, it’s worse than MA, just in different ways. As for the insurance, when I lived in MA, had a friend who owned a State Farm agency just over the border in CT. She always told me don’t ever make a claim unless it’s a big one, because you will be cancelled afterwards the first claim. Poor bastards would file for a thousand bucks because a branch fell on their shed and boom, now they can’t get insured. What a racket, pay tens of thousands over the years and the minute you ask them to hold up their end the bargain they tell ya to go shit in your hat. My house also has no mortgage, but I’m kind of forced to have insurance because I’m about a quarter mile from the gulf, and a devastating hurricane is certainly a real possibility. Another advantage of residing in lovely Florida!
I’ve been pointing this DMV Fraud out to people for about 2 decades, and the sheeple just don’t get it. Their usual response is this: “well the State has to have some way to allow bad drivers who can’t get even SR22 Insurance a legal way to get to work”. Really? Ever heard of the Heel-Toe Express? Consequently, or not-so-coincidentally, the $500.00 Uninsured Motorist Fee, practically guarantees that the “legally Uninsured” VA drivers are also the one with the worst driving records and highest risk of causing harm to everyone else! Even the 3-time DUI offender will go for the DMV $500.00 fee, because it is well below the rate of an SR22, which would take him years to qualify for anyway. So why wait? Shitty, deadbeat Non-Drivers….Step right up and pay DMV $500.00 and you’re “legal” to get out there and cause even more harm and damage that you will never be able to afford to pay for, YEEEHAAAH!
Of course, the damage caused by the Non-driving Uninsured Motorist is what seemingly legitimizes Insurance for the rest of us. Actually, the criminally irresponsible drivers just need to be packing about 20-50 Grand on them and be ready to dole it out when (not if) they cause harm and damage to others.
I suspect I would have about 300K easily, in cash today, if I hadn’t been forced to be legally sodomized for driver’s insurance over the last 37 years! Add Interest to that over 37 years, and I could likely even BUY my way out of voluntary vehicular manslaughter. Damn. If I had just thought of that 37 years ago, crap! They say that O.J.’s defense wasn’t black or white, it was GREEN!
Does that mean he didn’t leave any “carbon footprints” at the scene?? Frankly, product liability being what it is today, I am surprised he didn’t try to blame her death on Wilkinson or Ginsu. Oh hell, that makes me wanna go watch the OJ gettaway video again….hahahaha!