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

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:41 am

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.


it is not, it is not, it is not, it is not.
What about having a drivers license that you have to pay for (and renew every year in the US I believe, which does cost money as well). How does that fit into your legal argument thingy?
Inspection, which requires the owner of the car to pay money to an inspector every year. How does that into your concept of the system?
These are all mandatory things that are meant to increase the savety (or financial savety) of people that are using the roads. Why are they not a problem, but insurance is? Or do you put these things into question as well? Do you think that people should be allowed to drive without a license? Maybe even the test for the license is "not legal" according to your views?
I am confused, because I see absolutely no difference between the reason for these to the reason for insurance. But maybe you can help me there?

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:05 am

Actually it has been litigated in court and in fact in some states they can't make you have a driver's license to use the public roads.

But the police ignore it and you have to go to court every time to settle it. Most folks don't bother. Cheaper just to accept the intrusion.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:43 am

mad_derek wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
mad_derek wrote:
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!).


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).



That's such a shame. The Magna Carta is one of the most important documents in history and it's creation affected the course of history in a positive way. It heavily influenced all subsequent ruling documents including our own founding Documents.

No one remembers their history anymore, nor why it is important to remember.

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:58 am

Skipjack wrote:
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.


it is not, it is not, it is not, it is not.


Is too! Is too! Is too! Is too! :)

Skipjack wrote:What about having a drivers license that you have to pay for (and renew every year in the US I believe, which does cost money as well). How does that fit into your legal argument thingy?
Inspection, which requires the owner of the car to pay money to an inspector every year. How does that into your concept of the system?
These are all mandatory things that are meant to increase the savety (or financial savety) of people that are using the roads. Why are they not a problem, but insurance is?


I am glad you asked me that! Both items represent Reasonable state requirements to demonstrate that someone is competent to operate a potentially dangerous machine in a safe manner, and to verify that said machine is in a safe operating condition.

The lack of either one of these examples of State oversight will increase the likelihood of an innocent party being injured or killed.

The Presence or Lack of Insurance does not affect the probability that anyone will be hurt.

In other words, the lack of insurance does NOT contribute to the probability of an accident. As a matter of fact, articles i've seen tend to indicate a positive correlation between having insurance and the likelihood of an accident. (People are more reckless when they don't have to worry about damages.)



Skipjack wrote:Or do you put these things into question as well? Do you think that people should be allowed to drive without a license? Maybe even the test for the license is "not legal" according to your views?


Don't be silly. No one is born knowing how to operate a car. People have to learn how to do this. In order to verify that people are competent to operate an automobile, Agents of the State test them. A license is the symbol of their tested proficiency.

The State has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the safety of it's citizens. Licenses and Inspections are reasonable means to accomplish this.


Skipjack wrote:I am confused, because I see absolutely no difference between the reason for these to the reason for insurance. But maybe you can help me there?



I'm thinking this is because you've never really considered this subject in depth. Once you've thought about it a bit, everything i've been saying makes perfect sense.
Last edited by Diogenes on Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:01 am

MSimon wrote:Actually it has been litigated in court and in fact in some states they can't make you have a driver's license to use the public roads.

But the police ignore it and you have to go to court every time to settle it. Most folks don't bother. Cheaper just to accept the intrusion.


I hadn't heard of this. I can see how you wouldn't have to have a license to walk or ride a horse down a public road, but if the courts are asserting you don't have to have one to operate a potentially dangerous automobile, I'd have to disagree with them. I can't fathom an argument for this which would make sense.

Do you have a link or an example?

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:33 pm

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... t-required

You will be surprised to learn that I found it with the search "Drivers license not required" .
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:35 pm

So far in the US (the UK may be different) no license is required to operate a knife or a sword.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:38 pm

From the above link:

As shown from the text of the statute reprinted in the appendix, the state has jurisdiction only over commercial operators and corporations. Free people can NOT have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:13 pm

Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:26 pm

MSimon wrote:From the above link:

As shown from the text of the statute reprinted in the appendix, the state has jurisdiction only over commercial operators and corporations. Free people can NOT have their right to travel regulated by their servants. The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.



Excellent find! I have long suspected that Mandatory insurance requirements, or any other onerous requirement was absolutely in conflict with basic human rights. You have found a treasure trove of Legal cases and opinions that bear this out. I'm thinking the only thing necessary to knock over this dead tree is for someone to file suit.

I know a few attorneys, and a couple of judges. Next chance I get, i'm going to discuss this with them.

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:32 pm

MSimon wrote:More:

NY State -

http://blog.infreedomscause.com/main/?p=218

A repost of some material from above with additions:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

A case:

http://web.archive.org/web/200102211440 ... nsing.html




CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.


CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.


CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.


CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.





Game. Set. Match!
Last edited by Diogenes on Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:36 pm

MSimon's posts have knocked it out of the park, but for what it's worth, Walter Williams (Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Prominent columnist) agrees with me about that right to travel buisness.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/13/t ... of-wishes/

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:14 pm

The Presence or Lack of Insurance does not affect the probability that anyone will be hurt.

No but it affects their right to justice and compensation when they get hurt anyway.
Again, I find this whole way of thinking very, very bothering, if not disturbing. This comes from a people that have no problem with more and more personal right violations and personal inconvenience AND unnecessary additional cost and maybe even economic problems caused by the increased security measures and other nonsense that we have to endure since 9/11.
Because that is all for "your own savety". But then they want to let everyone drive a car without a license even though more than 40,000 people get killed that way every fracking year. That is more than ten times as many as were killed in 9/11 and that only happened once and not every goddamn year.

Diogenes
Posts: 6817
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:06 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The Presence or Lack of Insurance does not affect the probability that anyone will be hurt.

No but it affects their right to justice and compensation when they get hurt anyway.



You just aren't getting the legal principle of "Before the fact."

The legal system in this country has vehemently opposed every attempt to accuse or pre-judge a criminal act "before the fact."

In simple terms, you have to commit a crime (or tort) before you can be accused (or punished) for a crime.(or tort)

Skipjack wrote:Again, I find this whole way of thinking very, very bothering, if not disturbing. This comes from a people that have no problem with more and more personal right violations and personal inconvenience AND unnecessary additional cost and maybe even economic problems caused by the increased security measures and other nonsense that we have to endure since 9/11.



Hold the phone jack! (Phone jack. He he :) )Plenty of people had problems with it. I have bitched about the ridiculously excessive security to everyone I personally know ever since they started this crap.

Most of the reason for having to put up with this crap goes right back to that "Before the fact" thinking that the courts employ. You see, we could simply ban anyone that looks Arabic, or comes from an Arabic country. The problem is, we are assuming that certain people will commit terrorist acts "before the fact."

As I have been continuously telling you, the law will not allow you to assume someone is going to commit a criminal (or negligent) act "before the fact." (Meaning, before they actually do it.)

Skipjack wrote:Because that is all for "your own savety". But then they want to let everyone drive a car without a license even though more than 40,000 people get killed that way every fracking year. That is more than ten times as many as were killed in 9/11 and that only happened once and not every goddamn year.


This demonstrates another point I mentioned before. The court system does not give a tinker's d@mn about the unintended consequences of their decisions. If a supreme court decisions results in tens of thousands of people getting killed, (which could have happened had forced busing and desegregation gotten out of hand) they will simply say. "Oh well. At least we're legally consistent. "

The courts do not care about quantity (of cases) , or consequence. They care about adhering to their legal philosophy.

In any case, I think the court cases discovered by MSimon have pretty much made this discussion academic. Unless there is some other legal principle involved that I'm not aware of, and unless there are other cases which go in the other direction, (difficult to conceive of because of the principle involved.) I'm pretty sure the mandatory insurance law cannot survive a serious court challenge.

Probably the only reason it hasn't had one is because the people with money to hire a lawyer, like the law, and the poor people whom it affect the most are both ignorant that they can challenge it, and unable to accrue the funding necessary to bring the challenge.

Whoever ends up successfully challenging this mandatory insurance law is going to be very badly hated by the majority of people who like the idea of reducing their financial risk at the cost of poor people loosing their right to travel.

Skipjack
Posts: 5820
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:34 am

Hold the phone jack! (Phone jack. He he )Plenty of people had problems with it.

Maybe you did, but Msimon here thinks that the security measures are all justified and not very bad anyway.
There have been some instances where people that were clearly not terrorists and from their whole appearance and personality not fitting the profile, getting harassed by security personell out or fun, which was then tried to be justified with "for your own personal savety". I want to go mad, whenever I hear this sentence. It is ridiculous and ludicrous.
The problem is that people do not understand what savety means. They judge the savety or unsavety of something by the amount of meady buzz made about it. So if an airplane crashes once a year, but there is a lot of media buzz, they automatically deem it unsafe. If more than 20,000 cars crash with deadly results every year, which is so much, that it is considered "normal", the media does not even talk about it anymore and people ignore the fact, that car traffic is among the biggest dangers that you can face in your personal life every day.
Terrorists? Compared to cars, the danger from them is laughable! This is the thing I hate most (despite all the other things that are hateable about them, like being non uniform wearing combattants hiding among civilians, being killers of non combattants, etc) about these terrorists: they have made traveling a nightmare. I am sooo stressed out every time, I have to fly. I used to love it.
Last edited by Skipjack on Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests