Republicans are stupid thieves.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Is mandatory insurance reasonable?

Poll ended at Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:58 pm

Yes. I shouldn't have to take any risks in life.
5
33%
I don't know. I haven't really considered the issue.
0
No votes
No. Use of public ways is a basic (and old) human right.
10
67%
 
Total votes: 15

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

And if that $40 a month job goes away due to the bad economy? You then lose your main job.

Fortunately in the USA the economy is always good and our central planners can always take every single person's individual situation in account and make the correct decision for them. You have no idea how wonderful it is to live in such a country.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:Diogenes, you are fishing for arguments. The thing is, even if you were right, noone is agreeing with you (other than the Msimons of the US). The majority of people seem to be perfectly fine with the law and therefore they will vote for that. That is how it is in a democracy.

The majority is a herd. They tend to go where the herd goes. The majority would have no problems violating all sorts of bedrock principles of freedom. That's why the founders of this nation were so terrified of the idea of Democracy. People don't THINK these things. They Feel them. That's what I believe all of you on the other side are doing. You are FEELING your opinion rather than thinking it. There is no logical argument that can win against an emotional one.

Skipjack wrote: You dont like that? Get yourself some island somewhere and found your personal dictatorship! I doubt you will find many willing to join you (other than Msimon maybe).
It would be a funny sort of dictatorship where we insist on the freedoms of the people! :)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Cars are often cheap and public transportation is often non-existent.
Well with cars being so cheap, it should be possible to afford the insurance too then, right?
Otherwise, maybe the US is about to get poorer, since people can not afford transportation anymore? Maybe you are not as rich as you keep claiming in the discussions here all the time? I get the feeling I am talking about a 3rd world country with people starving and living in favelas.
The US has much wealth. It also has penury. I am familiar with both parts, and the middle class as well.

The cost is simply a single aspect of the issue. The main component is the belief that a cost can be legitimately imposed, and even then, unevenly.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:BTW there are lots of things the general public favors that are incorrect or a violation of common law rights.

First we educate then we fix.
Amen Brother!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Diogenes wrote:Thanks to Chrismb I just thought of another consideration. Why are we only concerned with driving related damages? If the logic is sound, the same rule should apply to all other damages caused by negligence.
When the number of people dying from other forms of negligence gets anywhere near the epidemic numbers of deaths caused by negligence in a car then we can talk about it. Get within an order of magnitude and I'll hear you out. Same goes for property damage.

thanks

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

In the US allone about 40,000 people die in car accidents every year.
That is a pretty significant number. That does not even mention all those that are more or less severely injured, which are a lot more than what actually die.
Imagine what would happen if the government would have to take care of all of their medical bills because the drivers at fault were not insured. Especially with so many not having health insurance either in the US (and some people insisting that having health insurance is a bad idea anyway).
Then you will have many that will have loss or business, loss of working capability, partial and total. They also need to be supported. Without money out of insurance, they will be solely depending on the government. That means MINE and everybody elses tax money would be paying for someone elses incapability to drive a car. How would that be fair?
Of course you might say "well then lets not have the government pay for them either". Sure then you have them lying arround on the streets? That sure will increase the wealth of your nation. You know in order to sell stuff, you need to have people buying stuff. The less people that an afford buying stuff, the less you will sell. That means economic decline.
Economic decline means that I will again make less money.
Then in order to boost the economy, the government will have to do something and that probably means that again my tax money will have to pay because somebody else cant drive!
And quite frankly, I dont want any of MY money to compensate for somebody elses faults. I already have to do that in so many ways every day that it makes me want to puke.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Diogenes wrote:It would be a funny sort of dictatorship where we insist on the freedoms of the people! :)
I can picture it now.

"Hey you poor people. You are free to drive your broken down cars without insurance. But, you are not free to vote. Heck, I make a lot more money than you bitches. So STFU about that whole voting thingy and get back to driving your insuranceless cars. I will instill freedom in you pathetic little peons. Cause I got the money and I gots the votes and you little pathetic non-contributers can just stick it. "

"They are my people, I am their sovereign."

"I love them"

"PULL"

For reference.
Diogenes wrote:If only people who pay taxes were allowed to vote, (the way it was before that idiotic 24th amendment was passed.) then you might have an argument.
Diogenes wrote:People who aren't pulling the wagon, should STFU.
Diogenes wrote:If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.
Diogenes wrote:another example of a condition in which those who carry the load should have more say than those who don't.
Obviously the poor shouldn't get a say in this matter. If they don't like paying the insurance it doesn't matter because they don't have a vote to fix the problem. Maybe they should just STFU about it.
Diogenes wrote: I am slowly evolving the opinion that it is pointless to talk to you.
That

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Thanks to Chrismb I just thought of another consideration. Why are we only concerned with driving related damages? If the logic is sound, the same rule should apply to all other damages caused by negligence.
When the number of people dying from other forms of negligence gets anywhere near the epidemic numbers of deaths caused by negligence in a car then we can talk about it. Get within an order of magnitude and I'll hear you out. Same goes for property damage.

thanks
Same thing my friend said. It misses my point about the legal system's insistence on consistency.

When taking up the cause of discrimination against blacks, they didn't say "Well, this is only ten percent of the population, so we can safely ignore these legal issues." They took them up anyways, knowing full well that the vast majority of the country would be against their rulings.

Likewise, in the case of Murray v. Curlett, the courts didn't say, "Well, obnoxious athiests make up less than a tenth of a percent of the population, so we'll ignore this case and it's legal ramifications. "

If you know anything about law, you know that the statistics of occurrence are completely irrelevant to the merits of the case.

Dred Scott Vs. Sanford. How many examples are there of a slave challenging his status as property?

I think my point is legally valid, whether it meets the "Quantity" test or not.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:In the US allone about 40,000 people die in car accidents every year.
That is a pretty significant number. That does not even mention all those that are more or less severely injured, which are a lot more than what actually die.
Imagine what would happen if the government would have to take care of all of their medical bills because the drivers at fault were not insured. Especially with so many not having health insurance either in the US (and some people insisting that having health insurance is a bad idea anyway).
Then you will have many that will have loss or business, loss of working capability, partial and total. They also need to be supported. Without money out of insurance, they will be solely depending on the government. That means MINE and everybody elses tax money would be paying for someone elses incapability to drive a car. How would that be fair?
Of course you might say "well then lets not have the government pay for them either". Sure then you have them lying arround on the streets? That sure will increase the wealth of your nation. You know in order to sell stuff, you need to have people buying stuff. The less people that an afford buying stuff, the less you will sell. That means economic decline.
Economic decline means that I will again make less money.
Then in order to boost the economy, the government will have to do something and that probably means that again my tax money will have to pay because somebody else cant drive!
And quite frankly, I dont want any of MY money to compensate for somebody elses faults. I already have to do that in so many ways every day that it makes me want to puke.
Your point about occurrence statistics is irrelevant to the legal argument.

Your point about the cost to the government is irrelevant to the legal argument.

The inconvenience it cause you or others is irrelevant to the legal argument.

Your point about the economics is irrelevant to the legal argument.


If you don't believe me, just look at what the US Supreme court imposed in cost to protect the rights of blacks in the 50s and 60s. Billions. The courts didn't give a D@mn about arguments of convenience or economics or cost. As far as the legal system is concerned, Legal Principle trumps everything except a higher legal principle.

I have invoked the legal principles of Consistency and Precedent.

If you have a legal argument that trumps my legal argument, let's hear it.

mad_derek
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: UK (mostly)

Post by mad_derek »

Diogenes wrote: If you have a legal argument that trumps my legal argument, let's hear it.
OK. I'll take that as a challenge. Primary legislation (I hope that's the same term in US as UK?) - on the other hand it's the enactment of that legislation you're arguing against.
Insanity Rules!

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote:It would be a funny sort of dictatorship where we insist on the freedoms of the people! :)
I can picture it now.

"Hey you poor people. You are free to drive your broken down cars without insurance. But, you are not free to vote. Heck, I make a lot more money than you bitches. So STFU about that whole voting thingy and get back to driving your insuranceless cars. I will instill freedom in you pathetic little peons. Cause I got the money and I gots the votes and you little pathetic non-contributers can just stick it. "

"They are my people, I am their sovereign."

"I love them"

"PULL"

For reference.
The above is "SockPuppetry" It functions as mockery. Mockery is what you do when you can't think of anything else.

seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote:If only people who pay taxes were allowed to vote, (the way it was before that idiotic 24th amendment was passed.) then you might have an argument.
Diogenes wrote:People who aren't pulling the wagon, should STFU.
Diogenes wrote:If you are not paying the bill, you should not have an equal say with those who do.

Your influence should be exactly proportional to how much of the load you carry.

THAT'S FAIR.
Diogenes wrote:another example of a condition in which those who carry the load should have more say than those who don't.


I stand by every bit of that. Of course the context is regarding who chooses our elected Representatives. Regardless of who gets elected, I expect them to respect the rights of the poor as well as everyone else, in accordance with our common law and our constitutional principles.


seedload wrote: Obviously the poor shouldn't get a say in this matter. If they don't like paying the insurance it doesn't matter because they don't have a vote to fix the problem. Maybe they should just STFU about it.

I don't have a vote in the House or the Senate, but that does not make me oppressed. The poor would be no worse than before were we to adhere to the original intent of the founders.

Interestingly enough, Law Professor Glenn Reynolds (Of Instapundit fame) seems to agree with me.

HMM: 52 Million (36%) of Tax Returns Pay Zero Income Tax. I think that everyone who votes should pay income tax. And the amount should go up and down with federal spending.

Posted at 2:09 pm by Glenn Reynolds




seedload wrote:
Diogenes wrote: I am slowly evolving the opinion that it is pointless to talk to you.
That
For my part it hasn't been a total waste. The arguments have allowed me to think of several new corollaries in support of my main argument. One I hadn't mentioned before is proportionality.


To some, a car represents 90% of their assets. To understand what I am getting at, In Sweden they assess fines based on Income. The more money you make, the more your fine. One person paid something like a $180,000.00 fine for a traffic violation.

Using the Swedish method of thinking (Which I must admit has merits in this particular instance.) seizing someone's car, would be like seizing someone else's house.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

mad_derek wrote:
Diogenes wrote: If you have a legal argument that trumps my legal argument, let's hear it.
OK. I'll take that as a challenge. Primary legislation (I hope that's the same term in US as UK?) - on the other hand it's the enactment of that legislation you're arguing against.
IS that your argument?

The courts strike down legislation that violates the law all the time. (It can only do so after it has been enacted though. That's that "Before the Fact" thing again.

Next.

mad_derek
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: UK (mostly)

Post by mad_derek »

Diogenes wrote:
mad_derek wrote:
Diogenes wrote: If you have a legal argument that trumps my legal argument, let's hear it.
OK. I'll take that as a challenge. Primary legislation (I hope that's the same term in US as UK?) - on the other hand it's the enactment of that legislation you're arguing against.
IS that your argument?

The courts strike down legislation that violates the law all the time. (It can only do so after it has been enacted though. That's that "Before the Fact" thing again.

Next.
OK - that is different - can't strike down primary legislation here (except at the European level and I really don't want to go there!).
Insanity Rules!

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

mad_derek wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
mad_derek wrote: OK. I'll take that as a challenge. Primary legislation (I hope that's the same term in US as UK?) - on the other hand it's the enactment of that legislation you're arguing against.
IS that your argument?

The courts strike down legislation that violates the law all the time. (It can only do so after it has been enacted though. That's that "Before the Fact" thing again.

Next.
OK - that is different - can't strike down primary legislation here (except at the European level and I really don't want to go there!).
An interesting point that I have mentioned before is that it requires years of education and a law license to administrate law, and years of applied Law to become a Judge, but any collection of doofuses can make law. (all you have to do is get elected to the Legislature, or Congress.)

Often times legislators are not lawyers, and they just come up with ideas that pop into their head with little regard for how these laws will affect other laws, or cause unintended consequences.

Currently In Colorado there is a big to do about the recently passed law Taxing internet purchases made to Amazon. Amazon responded by cutting off all it's affiliates in Colorado, costing the state millions of dollars, and earning them Zero in tax revenue. Now people are talking about repealing the law.

The courts won't interfere with the legislature doing something stupid, as long as it doesn't conflict with established law. The courts can, and sometimes do, stop a new law from taking effect, until they can consider it in light of existing law, and usually when this occurs, they strike it down.

mad_derek
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: UK (mostly)

Post by mad_derek »

Diogenes wrote:
mad_derek wrote:
Diogenes wrote: IS that your argument?

The courts strike down legislation that violates the law all the time. (It can only do so after it has been enacted though. That's that "Before the Fact" thing again.

Next.
OK - that is different - can't strike down primary legislation here (except at the European level and I really don't want to go there!).
An interesting point that I have mentioned before is that it requires years of education and a law license to administrate law, and years of applied Law to become a Judge, but any collection of doofuses can make law. (all you have to do is get elected to the Legislature, or Congress.)

Often times legislators are not lawyers, and they just come up with ideas that pop into their head with little regard for how these laws will affect other laws, or cause unintended consequences.

Currently In Colorado there is a big to do about the recently passed law Taxing internet purchases made to Amazon. Amazon responded by cutting off all it's affiliates in Colorado, costing the state millions of dollars, and earning them Zero in tax revenue. Now people are talking about repealing the law.

The courts won't interfere with the legislature doing something stupid, as long as it doesn't conflict with established law. The courts can, and sometimes do, stop a new law from taking effect, until they can consider it in light of existing law, and usually when this occurs, they strike it down.
Yep, and we still have d**kheads here that do that too. Unfortunately Primary Law is just that (here). You can overturn it on European law (and it - relatively - frequently is). Let's just say that Magna Carta has effectively been repealled by primary legislation and leave it at that ... (I'm sorry but it's true).
Insanity Rules!

Post Reply