eye95
Well-known member
Agreed.
The state does not have the authority to allow or disallow. There are many ways people can cause property damage accidentally. Making a distinction because they are on publicly paid for right-of-ways is a pathway to tyranny. It gives the power of regulation to the state. The problem is easily solved by acquiring uninsured/under insured protection.
You not only agree with mandated insurance, but have fooled yourself into thinking it is inline with a free republic. A government regulating it's citizens' movements is tyranny in it's most basic form.
I missed nothing. The distinction is irrelevant. Insurance mandates do not require that the insured have coverage that can pay any damage amount. There are limits. The problem still exists that damages may be incurred that cannot be paid for. That's life and there is no getting around it no matter how much you want government to make it go away. Getting the government involved with this is another mistake that trades liberty for perceived safety.
The State absolutely has the authority to allow or disallow anything within its constitutionally defined powers (State constitution in the case of auto insurance laws). Whether or not you THINK they should is a matter of opinion.
Some people incorrectly define a free Republic as anarchy. The Founders, the Framers, and I do not. You do. Your rights allow you to do so, but your opinion doesn't and won't ever hold sway.
You don't see the significance of the distinction. I will point it out again, not for your benefit (since you refuse to see it, plain though it may be), but for the benefit of those reading the thread and honestly trying to arrive at a rational conclusion:
Seatbelt and helmet laws protect us from ourselves. We are quite capable of making trade-offs that involve only us, whereby we can sacrifice a measure of safety in the pursuit of happiness. Insurance laws protect us from the actions of others who are using the publicly-owned byways. That distinction is factual, and not opinion. IMO, because of that distinction, it is reasonable for government to protect my property from the irresponsible actions of folks using the public byways.
Your opinion differs. I don't care. The case has been stated for those reading the thread, so I will move on. Have a good day.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>