A Way To Rebel

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
I’m fine with insurance mandates.

Even if it means that those who would choose to get insurance anyway will have to pay a bigger premium? Making particular services mandatory just raises prices on people for those services. For example, we pay more for coverage and get less in terms of coverage.

It is illogical to think that when everyone has insurance people are more protected. What if instead of purchasing insurance I put that $100/month away into a savings account or invested it into a something productive. Wouldn’t that insure me just as much in the long run if I go 10 years accident free? That is $12K stashed away that I wouldn’t have otherwise had, not including any capital gains that might exist.

I see no need for everyone to have insurance. It is not the most productive choice for some of us; and besides it is unfair to make people have it especially since driving is NOT a privilege that should be provided by the state but rather a service that we should pay for in the market like anything else if we want to use it.

Vehicles are lethal weapons and not just any idiot should be able to drive, therefore we have tests. That is the privelage to me. You are permitted to use it only after proving worth.

However the hell batshit crazy teens and people who can’t read our road signs who drive better fucking have insurance when they plow into me! I should not have to claim that on my insurance.

[/quote]

But calling it a “privilege” doesn’t make any sense. A billionaire is not privileged because someone drives him around and neither is his driver privileged that he gets paid to drive someone around. The roads are a service that we should ALL pay for when we use it. And they definitely are not a privilege but rather a financial burden that the government cannot even turn a profit on.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
clip11 wrote:
What if the american public stopped paying their credit card bills, refused to pay insurance premiums when they went past a certain point i.e. we refused to pay car insurance more than $200 a year? What if people stopped making house payments, Im not talking about one person, I mean if millions started doing it.

What would happen?

Anarchy

Well no, not necessarily – in fact quite the opposite in light of all the government intervention going on in the markets.

Think about it this way: If people quit using services provided by the private sector then those services will go away. That is all. If people quit paying their CC bills then CC services will go away…and for those people that want to use them they will have to PAY big time for it since prices are set by supply and demand.

However, if people were to quit supporting the government it would go away just the same and then we would have anarchy. BTW, if we quit supporting government these banks would not be able to get away with “price gouging” because customers would seek other services or just quit paying their bills altogether. As it is now, banks will get bailed out which just will incur the expense on the tax payers – which we can both agree is not anarchy.

This is false. Government doesn’t really need taxes; that’s just an instrument of control. They can create any money they need electronically.

To REALLY rebel, citizens would have to refuse to interact in any way, not accepting anything in payment from the government (for foodstuffs, supplies, and the like). Then, the military would just take what’s needed.

Subsistance farm in an isolated area. Barter with neighbors but don’t create anything of value. Even then, the government might do a General Sherman and just strip the countryside and destroy/burn everything else.

[/quote]

But that cannot work for very long and destroying productive capacity just makes everyone worse of. The government can only steal what the private sector decides to produce.

I think it is much easier to just ignore government as if it does not exist. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided to quit their job working for the government and act as if it did not exist it essentially would not exist.

What you say about taxes is true. It is just a form of control and something we should not allow them to get away with; though I think we can both agree that the consequences of printing money into existence are not good either.

Good post! I’m also coming to believe that our Federal debt doesn’t really exist. All they do is push buttons on a computer, Congress looks at their screen and pushes more buttons (spending) and so on.

Its a con game where people exchange goods and services for something that is just a bunch of computer entries, back and forth, on and on.

The trick is to either be on the correct side of the button pushing (hard) or not play the game at all. So long as a person plays the game, the button pusher is like the dealer in Blackjack and the person eventually loses.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Was that not the case people would overuse the resource “road” even more.

But this is a completely different argument. Government steals our money so that leaches can over use a service and then the government forces us to insure ourselves so that these same leeches can be protected?

And it still does not change the fact that making something mandatory reduces the quality of service we will receive. Besides that, I can save my own money and someone CAN sue my estate in the event of my death – the same process they would have to go through with my insurance agency anyway.[/quote]

While I do agree that it is highly questionable to build roads with taxes they are and have been built with taxes.

That point that you not only risk you life but also other peoples lives while operating a vehicle also stands.

Someone bears that risk and it is you that is benefiting from your actions in the case of success. You basically ask to reap the rewards of a successful drive and be bailed out if something goes wrong.

Now you may have enough money to have any damage you inflicted on others to be taken care of, but most people don´t.

This is an issue that goes beyond mandatory insurance. We live in a society where we have to take risks, be it in the form of pollution, driving, or risky infrastructure like nuclear power plants.

The strictly anarchic point of view of dealing with it through property rights ignores a lot of problems that simply cannot be easily debated away- I do not want to take you high risks for me that reward you when you are successful and fuck me over when you are not.

Since exposing the public to some risk is inevitable though we need an agency to set a standard for acceptable behavior in such cases.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m also coming to believe that our Federal debt doesn’t really exist. [/quote]

The “our” part of it certainly doesn’t exist.

:slight_smile:

Insurance companies are the only ones who benefit from these mandayory laws, ecause they can charge whatever they want and you have to pay it like it or not. Its all about money! Here in Detroit since insurance is high as hell here, the city tried to create a insurance company for its citizens, where the citizens paid like $10 a week or something like that to the city for auto insurance. The insurance companies fought it amd it never happened.

I think if it is mandatory, an uninterested third party should make sure prices are fair and affordable for everyone.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if instead of purchasing insurance I put that $100/month away into a savings account or invested it into a something productive. Wouldn’t that insure me just as much in the long run if I go 10 years accident free? That is $12K stashed away that I wouldn’t have otherwise had, not including any capital gains that might exist.

I see no need for everyone to have insurance. [/quote]

I don’t know about other states but in Florida it is possible to “prove financial responsibility” by putting up a CD of some fairly reasonable amount – I forget what – as security. So long as the CD has not come due and has not been cashed in, insurance is not required. I suppose there is some mechanism by which either the bank must inform DMV that a CDE was cashed early, but am not familiar with it as I have not done that.