opining on car insurance
its interesting how if you get people on to a collectivist con they will start to screech at everyone for endangering them all the time. in this example; car insurance.
the American thing to do is buy insurance for yourself in case something happens. this is always how insurance worked. you don't buy home insurance in case someone robs your neigbor's house.
but they somehow convinced people that you need to buy insurance for other people's benefit, which is what enables the situation where it is possible to have a 'danger of uninsured drivers' in the first place.
it's bongo logic.
opining on car insurance
@icedquinn Don't you think it makes sense to buy insurance to cover potential liabilities?
That's a pretty normal accounting idea.
re: opining on car insurance
@swiley its purely an argument about the government engaging in collectivism: forcing you to buy a service that is for the benefit of other people entirely.
for all other things than cars and masks, you have to cover your own exposure with whatever means of your chosing (including just.. not, and praying you don’t dinged in civil court .)
re: opining on car insurance
nobody does this.
they buy home insurance in case *they* get robbed.
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn I could misunderstand but you have to buy renters insurance when you rent an apartment in case you burn down your neighbors units.
You also have to have boat insurance for boats of a certain size. Banks have to have insurance against insolvency. etc.
The problem is that many people have a very hard time understanding risk and when enough people make the same mistake it exposes everyone to problems. Also if you buy anything on a loan that thing usually becomes the collateral so it makes sense for banks to require insurance on what is potentially their asset.
Cars in particular are extremely dangerous and driving one is very likely to result in an accident. (IMO the fundamental problem is that *everyone* has to drive to get literally anywhere in the US.) Car accidents almost always create more liability than many people can afford and so the end result of most of them would be "oh too bad someone else hit you."
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn Yes, that is a good point. If the road infrastructure were maintained by a private entity they would almost certainly have a similar contract for similar reasons though.
re: opining on car insurance
if you buy your own health insurance then someone hitting you with a car, you call your insurance to fix it. then you (or the insurance) file a civil suit afterward. if you don't buy the service you have only screwed yourself.
the collectivist argument is i have to buy health insurance in case i hurt someone else. which means i only have coverage if the person who punches me does.
re: opining on car insurance
@swiley you end up having to buy personal insurance anyway because you may still end up getting hit by an inunsured driver. and without an expensive full coverage plan, you’re back to “soz lol.”
which is why i think collectivist insurance is retarded.
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn You don't have to do this in fact (I don't, since I own my car outright and it's a slowly disintegrating piece of junk that's not worth insuring.)
re: opining on car insurance
if everyone only ever bought personal insurance, they would only get screwed because of a choice they made.
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn The large scale pattern that emerges from that combined with the way western law handles liability is sufficiently unpleasant to justify the insurance requirement.
re: opining on car insurance
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn The insurance banks are required to have is a good example of it working that way for other things.
re: opining on car insurance
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn Yeah, boating regulations are another good set of examples:
You're required to wear a life jacket, you're required to have insurance.
re: opining on car insurance
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn It's the same issue: if you run your boat into something and can't pay to replace it then everyone loses.
re: opining on car insurance
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn There are other situations where the government forces people to become customers (in some cases without even the choice of forgoing the use of some infrastructure like with cars.)
Tax preperation servers
Metro (or other transit operators)
Utility companies
The telephone company (which used to only have one provider and in most places only has one maintaining the connection to your house)
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn The health ensurance makes the problem go away for you but after that the other person probably owes your health insurance provider.
I think the liability here comes from older common law with the idea that when you cause a problem you're on the hook for righting it.
Also: things other than your health often get damaged in accidents: health insurance doesn't cover the car, and health insurance doesn't cover the cargo.
re: opining on car insurance
re: opining on car insurance
@icedquinn The mandatory part of car insurance covers liabilities created by you in an accident that includes things like hitting people's mailboxes etc.
re: opining on car insurance