I reject this analogy. You keep bringing terms like sin and crime into the discussion in some attempt to emotionally charge your argument, but these not interchangeable terms with financial liability.Diogenes wrote:EricF wrote:Diogenes wrote:
Good point. "Prior to the fact." Isn't this a legal term meaning you can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it ?
I think this is actually a bedrock legal principle. Why isn't mandating insurance a case of Prior to the fact of a crime, or in the case of civil law, prior to the fact of an injury?
Come to think of it, I think mandatory insurance may be the only example I know of the government Forcing you to pay for an injury you haven't caused before the fact!
I suppose you could say the selling of indulgences might be a prior example of this sort of thing, and that didn't turn out very well, did it ?
No, if you unintentionally damage someones property, you have not necessarily committed a crime. But you are held legally responsible to make the owner of the property whole again.
This is more like making sure you are financially solvent enough to be ble to make someone whole if you damage their property or body. Just like we require banks to be financially solvent in order to do business.
Let me emphasize the "Prior to the fact" thing.
The Protestant schism was a result of Martin Luther finding certain practices of the Catholic Church to be morally reprehensible. Among these was the "Selling of Indulgences." You see, when people committed a sin, it was Catholic doctrine that they should tell their priest so that he may give them an appropriate punishment. It eventually occurred to some clever clergy that they could simply make people pay fines for sins they committed. Eventually, this evolved to the point where the Clergy would issue them papers (Indulgences.) that gave them permission to commit sins of a certain magnitude because they already paid the Church in advance.
So it came to pass that you could go to your local clergy, pay him enough money, and he would grant you permission to commit Adultery or Kill someone. (I'm pretty sure the system wasn't misused because I expect permission to kill someone cost a great deal of money, and probably only Lords and Nobles could afford it.)
The point is, Paying for sins BEFORE you commit them is a logical and moral fallacy, yet that is the system we hold to with this insurance buisness.
You are in fact paying for sins you MIGHT commit, before the fact.
What the mandatory insurance says is 'by driving on our roads, you are putting others at risk for large amounts of financial loss. You must pay this toll in order to participate in case you cause damage". It has absolutely nothing to do with sins, crime, slavery or any other colorful term you might try to strawman up.
