collectivism is a disease you should have that biopsied and looked at

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.

@icedquinn Don't you think it makes sense to buy insurance to cover potential liabilities?
That's a pretty normal accounting idea.

@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 .)

@swiley for example the house equivalent is buying homeowners insurance that does not protect you but is in case you rob someone else's house. or someone else gets robbed.

nobody does this.

they buy home insurance in case *they* get robbed.

@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."

@swiley many of those cases are part of a contract and not law

@swiley also people constantly bring up that argument but it doesn't actually pass.

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.

@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.

@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.)

@swiley no, but if you don't have personal insurance you still get screwed if you get hit by an uninsured driver.

if everyone only ever bought personal insurance, they would only get screwed because of a choice they made.

@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.

@swiley then why doesn't it work this way for literally anything else

@icedquinn The insurance banks are required to have is a good example of it working that way for other things.

@swiley FDIC is weird

@icedquinn Yeah, boating regulations are another good set of examples:
You're required to wear a life jacket, you're required to have insurance.