When the government requires you to buy something (or take something) it is prima facie evidence there is probably something wrong with it. That there is little, if any, benefit to you – especially if you are a responsible, prudent person – and probably a great benefit to those who are not. Who are almost invariably the ones insisting you be made to buy (or take) whatever it is they favor forcing you to buy (or take).
Car insurance falls into this category.
It is not an evil thing, as such – but becomes so when it is required. The latter being too polite, too evasive a word. When the government requires anything it is threatening everyone.
You will buy insurance – or else.
So as to be made to pay for the harms you haven’t caused – as well as those caused by others.
Instead of coverage based upon you, the individual – and your individual risk profile, based on actuals harms you have or have not caused and your particular individual likelihood of causing harm in the future, extrapolated from your specific record – you are collectivized into a herd of people whose risk (and actual causing of harms) is higher. And because this mafia can force you to pay, you are made to pay on the basis of tenuous-at-best “risk factors” such as the number of tickets you have received for various traffic infractions.
All of them pretexts and excuses.
If they had no power to force you to pay, they would not dare to raise your premium to the exorbitant levels now commonplace – which are commonplace precisely because they can force you to pay them.
They wouldn’t be able to impose a 20 percent “surcharge” just because you received a ticket for doing 42 in a 35 – because you could simply cancel the policy.
They could never get away with charging you more for “coverage” than it was worth to you – as by charging more for the coverage than the car, itself, is worth. (This is generally about what most people actually do pay for “coverage” at gunpoint, when you factor it over time. It is common to pay $1,000 annually for a full-coverage policy; the average car sells for about $32,000. Thus, over a period of about thirty years, one has paid as much for “coverage” as for the car, a bad deal for most people, especially those who never wreck their cars. Hence the need to force people to buy such coverage)
Why not eliminate laws requiring insurance – and simply hold people accountable when and only if they cause harm to others?
It would be just. It would cost the responsible among us, less. And it would remove the bayonet from our backsides – and not just over this.
I harm no one by driving without insurance. Just as I harm no one by being healthy.
If I run off the road and wreck my car, that’s my problem – or ought to be. No one else ought to be obliged to pay to fix it (or me). If I wreck your car – or harm you – then I am responsible, morally, for that and you have every right to hold me accountable for the damages.
There is no ambiguity. No “might” or “maybe.” A person either did – or did not – cause harm.
It is unjust to make people pay for harms they have not caused; it is unjust to make people pay for the harms caused by others. Both amount to punishment absent crime. You are made to hand over money under duress; this is the definition of theft. Your money is gone; you are left with “coverage” you did not want. Theft does not become not-theft because the thief handed you a policy in exchange.
Now, some will say: But “society” has the right to protect its members against the possibility of harms. This is fatuous. There is no “society” except as an abstract/rhetorical device – only individuals and only individuals have rights. No person has the right to hold anyone else responsible for harms they might cause. That is the definition of presumptive guilt, of “sentence first, verdict after.” It sets a dangerous precedent as well for the further expansion of this evil principle, which we are now dealing with as regards the presumption of sickness – and the presumptive spreading thereof by healthy people.
It is impossible to argue against “might.” To set any barrier, beyond which “might” may not step and assert its demand – and apply punishments. To accept that it is ok to make people people pay for insurance to “cover” harms they might cause with a car is to accept the principle that it is ok to force people to buy insurance to “cover” harms they might cause with a gun, or with their fists.
Their words, even.
There is literally no end to it – other than how much punishment people are willing to accept on the basis of someone else’s fear of what might happen.
There is also the argument in defense of forcing people to buy insurance as regards “costs to society” of the uninsured – whether car or otherwise. This is also fatuous – and misdirected.
In the first place these “costs” are hypothesized rather than actual. Another extrapolation of the principle of might, which is wrong on the face of it as well as dangerously wrong for the open-ended precedent it sets.
In the second place, these “costs” – if they are incurred – belong properly in the lap of the person who incurred them. If I run my car off the road no one else ought to be obliged to “help” me repair it, or me for that matter. I should have no legal way to force anyone else to “help” me. if I damage someone else’s car or them, then I – and I alone – ought to be held responsible, not “society” (that is, other people – who had nothing to do with it).
But what if I cannot pay! Then “society” is left holding the bag! This is the usual argument. It only holds if the law makes “society” – other people, who had nothing to do with it – pay for the harms I caused. Remove that element of force and “society” pays nothing.
This will of course entail expecting – and if necessary, obliging – me to pay. If I do cause harm to others. But who can argue the rightness of that? If I haven’t got the funds, then oblige me to work to earn the funds. Or to sell possessions to raise the funds. Is this not morally preferable to making everyone work to earn the funds extracted by a government-backed cartel that can make everyone pay for harms they have not caused? And by dint of that power, make them pay staggering sums over the course of their lives, far in excess of any benefit received for the “coverage”?
But this is unworkable! We cannot have people chained to indentures, or debtor’s prisons. Better than chaining everyone to a legalized indenture and perpetual debt, without the compensatory moral justification of their owing the debt.
Finally, if insurance were not mandatory, it would be affordable and most responsible people would likely buy it, without being forced – because it would be a fair exchange. It would be worth it to them. A driver who is careful and skilled would pay a trivial sum for coverage precisely because of the unlikelihood of his every having a claim filed against him. But the paying of a small sum for just-in-case (of an encounter with an irresponsible person) would appear to him reasonable and so he would, without being forced.
The fact that he is forced – to pay an exorbitant sum – tells much about who benefits from all this “coverage.”
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
“I have yet to receive a good – sensible – answer to this question.” And many others.
Eric, your arguments and logic are sound, rational, well-reasoned.
Unfortunately, human beings are not governed over-all by such things, never have been, and probably never will be.
History consists of occasional insights and temporary lucidity interrupting a constant swirl of irrationality, hypocrisy, greed, fear and exploitation.
An optimist I’m not.
-no auto insurance mandate whatsoever
-lowest insurance rates in the country
-bedlam has not ensued
If you want to protect your property, insure it. Hands off your neighbors wallet, thief.
How much of NH is people escaping MA/Boston? I’m curious, if I did want to live into the live free or die area of NH, I’d probably want to avoid the southern parts, like Nashua or Manchester, right?
I know NH pretty well, lived in RI and road tripped all over. Beautiful state, and you guys have the fall colors coming soon.
OL, fall colors are the colors of dead trees stripped of their colorful green livery. The appearance of horrible cold and wet weather which is energy sapping to us warm weather lovers.
I have to use force all of the time. Flies won’t quit bugging me, they get swat with a fly swatter with all of my might. Horse flies are slow and are easy targets.
Low fly populations during winter.
All insurance is an investment, you pay for the convenience and the luxury. It can cost an arm and a leg, even when the warehouse at insurance central is filled with arms and legs.
Health insurance is where the real ripoff begins. Makes no sense. I bought three months of health insurance in 1979, paid 75 dollars. In 1990, paid 1300 plus for one year of health insurance. Now it’s nuts. Hyperinflation is here and has been bad for years now. Why should a professional ball player pay the same insurance rate as someone making 75,000 USD per year? Ten percent of their income for health insurance would make them cry like babies.
Carry home insurance, you never know anymore, you might be a domestic terrorist and get Waco-ed.
Vehicle insurance at a cost of 200 USD per month for one year is 2400 dollars. Times 20 is 48,000 USD for full coverage on a vehicle worth 8000 USD used, times two, maybe three, you maybe receive back 16000 USD. Plus the cost to purchase two vehicles, maybe 35 K. Total cost of some 67,000 dollars plus gas and maintenance for a car worth 8000 at the end of it all.
After 20 years of working, you will bring home 1,000,000 USD at 50,000 USD per year. Fifty percent the for taxes and insurance, you have 500 grand to spend wisely.
With no motor, no fuel, no wheels, you’ll be feeding horses hay to have them pull the wagon load of goods down the road. Still is going to cost you some dough.
Don’t buy cars and pickups, problem solved. You’ll have more money and fewer headaches.
Amazon will deliver everything to your door on the 20th floor.
Picking cucumbers is an arduous task, but you get a good workout.
Healthcare and College are also both overpriced due to government sticking its nose in too. Both were at one time very affordable.
Just as there was the real estate and stock market “bubbles in 2008-2012, so it appears that the educational industry, inflated and propped up by questionable student loans, with spiraling default rates, and Health Care will likewise go “pop”, due to the same Government interference.
College will go pop first. That one has to give soon. Tuition prices are unbelievably high. And what exactly are you getting for your investment? Kids racking up 200k in debt to earn an art history degree or a degree in anything that ends in “studies” qualifies them for a long fruitful career as a barista at star bucks.
You are already starting to see people going the technical or trade route more now. At some point soon that flood of kids rushing from high school to college is going to dry up and its going to leave a lot of out of work phd’s in its wake.
There is already a flood of out of work PHD’s, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
College in general should be finishing school for rich schmucks (classical liberal arts- attempting to at least teach basic tenets of civilization to those who inherit most of the power in a society), or advanced scientific training for researchers like physicists, and chemists.
Professions like doctor, lawyer, and engineer would be vastly better served by a system of trade guilds and apprenticeships. As bad as such are they are nowhere as corrupt as systems of “accreditation” and licensing.
That was how it worked initially. People would do an apprenticeship in a field to gain experience the go out on their own. In the case of doctors they would go right from the apprenticeship to medical school without the 4 yr college in between. If i had to do it over again i would have gone a technical or trade route with some business classes thrown in as a way to learn to creat my own business. Now i feel like a slave to the corporate world which is probably about to spit me out because i refuse to go along with their sickness psychosis.
Just like in “Mona Lisa Smile”, where Wellesley, the alma mater of the Hildebeast, was in 1953 a glorified “finishing school”, so Julia Roberts decides to take Erin Broko-bitch teaches at a women’s college her snarky, Feminazi ways. Of course they’d throw her out on her ear at that time, there was a thing called COMMON SENSE!
I’m not ridiculing higher education for women at all; my “little goil”, youngest of the Self clan, off her LDS mission, is at school in “Yew-Tah” now, and I’m paying…A LOT. If folks will ridicule either the fictional Wellesley 1953 setting in the move, or some conservative state schools, or BYU, or similar, well, please keep in mind, “Birds of a Feather”. That is, certainly I want my “little goil” to get a quality mate, one that’s COMPATIBLE, so if in a few years her education is sidetracke due to getting her “MRS degree”, well, she 21 now and is already an adult, and should only mature further, so that’s HER decision, and not of any pontificating smart-ass to comment one way or the other.
Jared Dillian is a personal finance advisor who does a fairly good weekly newsletter called The 10th Man. For a while he did a podcast but it seems to have fallen off over the last year or so. He did a great episode explaining the law of supply and demand when it comes to lawyers. Apparently there are so many lawyers with so little work to go around now that most aren’t making much more than average income. Any law degree from a non-ivy league school is pretty much worthless. But that degree is one of the most expensive ones out there, and funded largely with massive debt. So you make no money with high debt in a highly competitive market. But no guidance councilor will ever discourage any high school kid from going into the legal profession.
Yes richb, when I went to college in 73-77, I was able to work almost full time, pay for my schooling and had money left over to run a car. All on a pay of $5500 per year. Came out of school debt free. The same school charging me $2200 for tuition then now charges $35,000 per year and you can bet that you cannot as a part time worker make that kind of money and come out of school debt free.
Even earlier than that, I was at Northeastern U. 1965-70 and tuition was $600 per quarter when I graduated. The co-op program helped plus I worked nights as a janitor and managed to support myself with money left over to buy beer.
Fast forward to 2001 when my son graduated from there and tuition was $25,000/year and the co-op paid diddly squat. His grandparents and I paid most of his tuition so he wouldn’t be burdened with a lifetime of payments and he ended up with a good job so we all lucked out.
Don’t see how much longer colleges can keep up with this scam nowadays; with all of the courses that are available online, and how the hell do you get a job with a useless degree like “gender studies?”
“If I haven’t got the funds, then oblige me to work to earn the funds. Or to sell possessions to raise the funds.”
I’ve oft thought that a lucrative business to replace “liability” insurance would be the liability loan company. Once found liable for an accident, a person would then have a plethora of high interest lenders from which they could purchase a loan and quickly pay the parties to whom they owe reparations.
There is NO reason this could not be.
Also, if you were to save the money you’d spent on insurance over the years, what car could you not afford to repair if you should cause it damage? Well, probably Lamborghinis and Teslas…
Also, also… Harry Browne was the first person to inspire me toward the libertarian movement, back in the mid 90s. He was on CSPAN, touting things I’d NEVER heard from any politician, or really, pretty much anyone. He spoke of ideas that finally made sense, and that were based on principle. RIP Harry.
There is a big reason it could not exist, politics.
First the existing cartels would prohibit it from coming into being. If they weren’t around and came into being many people would consider it predatory and have it prohibited. Then lastly if that didn’t happen people simply wouldn’t pay the loans back and there would be no recourse, because that too is ultimately determined by politics and the politics would be against the loan companies.
Now why is that? Because the costs people would have to borrow for would be well beyond their means to pay back. Now if you could get rid of the medical cartel that might get a good deal better.
This is one of those concepts that could work once we have liberty but before then simply wouldn’t. With one exception of course, get in bed with government on it. Government would like it as much as government likes the student loan racket. Make debt slaves of people. The problem is the established players have such a head start.
‘Harry Browne was the first person to inspire me toward the libertarian movement, back in the mid 90s.’ — BaDnOn
Harry’s Browne’s book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (1973) rocked my world. It’s a clear-eyed analysis of what choices are within your control to deal with things that you can’t control (government; other people; etc).
Then Harry Browne lit me up again with his permanent portfolio concept in Fail Safe Investing (1998). I’ve since designed actively-managed portfolios with higher returns, whereas Harry’s permanent portfolio (25% stocks, 25% gold, 25% T-bills, 25% T-bonds) is totally passive other than rebalancing.
But Harry handed me the fundamental concept of a low-risk, bulletproof portfolio that can withstand whatever insanity Big Gov may throw at it, in a future that can’t be foreseen.
If Harry were around to write a guest-appearance sequel to this post of Eric’s, after watching the looney-tunes adventures of Dementia Joe, he’d probably title it Farce Ruins Everything. 🙂
“Why not eliminate laws requiring insurance – and simply hold people accountable when and only if they cause harm to others?”
I do agree with your sentiment here, though I have an argument (call it devil’s advocate if you wish). I’ve had a car totaled (hit from behind, totally his fault) by an uninsured driver who skipped out when people (law enforcement, my insurance company) tried to hold him responsible. In a free society, exactly how am I supposed to be compensated when the offending party goes into hiding?
Because of incidents like this (and a couple of hit-and-runs that left minor damage to my car), I carry full coverage (though with high deductibles) even though my car is paid for. I don’t like it, not one bit, but experience has taught me that it’s the prudent thing to do. I guess if my car was more crappy than it is, or I had a second one, I’d forego this expense. Fortunately, it’s not too expensive (certainly not $1000 a year where I live).
Jim, you would still have the option of voluntarily purchasing insurance to protect yourself against that situation much as you would protect against other hazards such as fire or theft.
The KEY word being “VOLUNTARY”. Insurance has its place, and like other things, works best for the insureds and the investors of the insurance companies…UNTIL the “Gubmint” sticks its nose into the mess.
I had an un-insured driver hit my building’s fence and electrical lines in March. I have property insurance. I had to pay a $1000 deductible before I was reimbursed for the first dime. I have property insurance for mistakes that “I” make….why should I also have to pay for someone else’s mistakes?
This where I cannot see eye to eye with many libertarians. I am supposed to be responsible for myself AND someone else that causes damage to MY property because they aren’t paying attention and don’t feel the need to cover their own ass? Either we tote personal responsibility which includes accountability for actions that one takes and an accident occurs than they are personally liable. I am sick and tired of bailing people out because they can’t be bothered to do the right thing. If I err I am responsible for fixing it. They should be as well. Instead the jerk walked off scot free. I can’t sue him, because he has nothing. The truck was registered to his brother and was paid in cash so insurance was not a requirement. On an even better note (pure sarcasm) just got the letter from the insurance company last month….my insurance premium has now increased an additional 8%. Why? Because I had to file a claim to be reimbursed for the damages, which I was not entirely reimbursed for for damage that I did not commit. Maybe this seems fair to you, but it sure doesn’t to me.
Also, why should a homeowner have to pay a $2500, $5K, or $10K deductible because some arsonist set their house on fire or stole valuables? I have homeowner’s insurance to protect my home from natural disasters or accidents (e.g. I burn the kitchen down or an electrical fire starts in a wall). One should not have to be on the hook to pay for someone who broke the law (whether by accident or intentional).
“This where I cannot see eye to eye with many libertarians”.
Time for some wisdom from Bastiat,
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Likewise, when libertarians condemn government mandated insurance it does not mean that we oppose insurance or personal accountability. As your post makes clear, at least if you live in a mandatory insurance state, such laws did not prevent the uninsured driver from harming you. It is likely that more irresponsible uninsured drivers exist because of these laws; which, like all regulations sold as “protecting the public”, are merely cronyist scams to protect the industry. Such laws drive up the cost of insurance, which may price out well meaning, but relatively destitute people, and create a perverse incentive to be irresponsible.
Please reread my posts – I am not for mandating insurance. Actually, my response to Doug clearly states I am not for mandated insurance, but Jason, Doug, and Live Free or Die all clearly stated that is why there is voluntary insurance so YOU pay if your property is damaged by someone else. This allows the irresponsible off and pushes the responsibility to the one who should not be held unaccountable.
I don’t care if people have insurance or not (I don’t have medical), but I am responsible for the harm that I cause and the bills that arise. It is not someone’s else obligation to hold my bag. Telling the person that is being accountable “Oh well, suck it up” does not place accountability on the person that caused the destruction or crime.
It is providing the irresponsible an easy out. The man that destroyed my property did not have to pay restitution, did not have to clean up his mess, did not serve jail time, or provide community service. He shrugged his shoulders knowing full well nobody was going to do anything. I had to clean up the mess, I had to pay the deductible, I had to hire others to repair the fencing and yard. What about my time?
Also, I am not required to have property insurance in VA since the property is owned free and clear. I have it incase a client falls down the steps walking out of my office or if I take the driveway turn to sharp. It is not for me to cover the irresponsibility of others, only myself.
Insurance has never been sold as some mechanism for guaranteeing that those who trigger its implementation are held accountable or responsible.
In the case of your anecdote, your options for achieving accountability/responsibility are filing a civil lawsuit, where even if the defendant has nothing you could attach future earnings, etc. or criminal charges. Sometimes, though, when you are insured and made whole (minus deductible, of course) “sucking it up” regarding accountability is simply more sound economically and time wise than some scorched earth legal campaign.
I am not promoting insurance, just personal responsibility. I don’t care how someone makes square as long as they do. Nor am I trying to wage a scorched Earth campaign. I used what happened to me as an example.
My regard is on every individual that goes through this (and I believe we all have). The responsible continue to get jostled in higher premiums, higher deductibles, lost wages, and valuable time.
Insurance rates (auto, home, health, etc.) would remain low if claims were not filed, right? I think we can both agree on that. Premiums increase when insurance companies have to pay out more. Why should someone else have to pay more when they are not the ones causing the damage? My claim filing doesn’t just directly impact me with an additional 8% premium, but directly impacts you and everyone else that carries insurance as well. It occurs because we don’t hold the thoughtless feet to the fire. We let them off and all end up paying for it.
Also, a civil lawsuit would cost additional dollars to an attorney, court fees, and do we really think a guy who doesn’t even have a car in his name, home, or any assets is being paid in anything other than cash? By the way I did investigate early on because the insurance company was fighting me on the payout and I did not believe I would be reimbursed….no job or at least one that wages were being recorded on. So the civil lawsuit would only have caused me additional lost time. The police didn’t seem interested in pursuing additional charges. I ate the $1K.
Guess what happened last month…..another car, another driver not paying attention to the road ahead, and another fence on my property. Except this one also damaged another vehicle before it plowed into my company’s parking lot. Apparently, I get to eat another $1K and instead of an 8% increase it may be 12 or 15%.
How does one go about demanding or enforcing your notion of personal responsibility? Or holding the feet of the thoughtless to the fire? You are using euphemisms for the use of force, which in reality as it is, the legal use of which in circumstances such as yours is confined to gov’t, via its courts and laws. That there were reasons you decided not to pursue such remedies is indicative of your pursuit of rational outcomes but also ended up to the frustration of your pursuit of accountability. Such are the trade offs in life.
I understand that you are opposed to mandatory insurance, but your characterization of what others have said is inaccurate.
“…but Jason, Doug, and Live Free or Die all clearly stated that is why there is voluntary insurance so YOU pay if your property is damaged by someone else”.
They were clearly talking about reality as it exists, not making a moral claim that others are devoid of responsibility.
You also wrote this, “When we provide them an out the responsibility becomes that of the property owner who did nothing wrong”.
What is “the out”? None of them has argued that irresponsible people are not morally culpable for damage that they cause, they’ve just pointed out that the State will not protect you.
Everything in the statist and collectivist systems put huge burdens on the productive and responsible. That’s the whole point of these systems. If I had to only be responsible when an irresponsible person harmed me in some way that would be a vast improvement. Sure it’s far from perfect, but it’s way better than paying very high tax rates, higher costs for most everything, and in the end still being responsible when harmed by the irresponsible.
The system can’t and won’t protect me. So getting rid of the system doesn’t change the problem because the system never had a solution to the problem. Getting rid of the system would lower the tribute and thus responsible people are more able to take the hit.
I understand the feeling that the government should do something to the offenders to make us whole again but it doesn’t. Even if the government acts, the government gets a payment, a pound of flesh, whatever, not those harmed. Passing laws to have the government do something just means more money paid out to taxes and cronies.
RG, you decided when you bought the policy that you could absorb $1000 of any damage that might occur in exchange for paying lower rates. You might as well argue why should you pay that money if your property is hit by lightning, or is damaged by a hurricane or tornado? After all, it’s not your fault those things happened, you did nothing wrong. For that matter why should you absorb that cost if you are burglarized or vandalized? You didn’t invite those people over to steal and destroy.
It’s an imperfect world and it is not always possible to be made completely whole against the many hazards that life presents. Libertarians have a saying: Utopia is not an option.
In the example you presented it would be up to you to sue the perp for your deductible in small claims court which is a streamlined venue that does not require hiring a lawyer. (I see people being sued for insurance deductibles on Judge Judy all the time.) Of course that’s not always possible depending on the circumstances and it is simply not possible to 100% insure that you will never be out of pocket when the cause of a loss is not your fault.
You COULD sue the bastard for the deductible, court fees, and mileage in small claims court. Of course, you still have to COLLECT, assuming you can get the POS served. And if he’s “judgment proof”, i.e., he has nothing to seize or attach, and in some situations he can just declare bankruptcy anyway (likely he’s a deadbeat all around).
No Libertarian should assert that there shouldn’t be enforcement of contracts and redress for torts. indeed, Rule of Law, which in the way I just described is deteriorating, is the foundation of why Government at all, else it’s Mad Max goes to Bartertown, “Two Men enter, ONE man leaves”, and “Bust a deal, face the WHEEL.” But some losses are NOT practically recoverable. Part of life, deal with it. Ask any man that’s been divorced, TWICE in my case.
I agree that debts should be recoverable. By whatever means necessary. A person who damages your property or injures you and refuses to make you whole has committed theft. If he has no means, then he still has ability to pay – as by working it off. I see no moral dilemma here. So long as what is owed is paid, in kind or otherwise. I have never understood why some people consider that primitive. It seems civilized to me. The guy who ruined RG’s fence can’t pay to get it fixed? Then let him fix it, with his labor (and to the same standard the fence was in before damaged by him).
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”
So slavery and involuntary servitude are legal, after conviction. Surely there was such pursued, if not inflicted against the driver. It’s a pity the 13th doesn’t include civil law.
If it’s a matter of what SHOULD be, Eric, couldn’t agree more. The trouble is, even though, in THEORY, debts incurred arising from criminal wrongdoing (like DWI) are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, good luck collecting! I’m not saying it’s right, no, it’s damned wrong, but it’s how things ARE.
THere’s only two means to insulate against the folly of the irresponsible: either purchase insurance against that potential loss, IF available, or “self-insure” (i.e. assume the risk personally) and carry on. In the end, life is itself a big risk…but can also bring big rewards. There’s just little in grousing over being “wronged” and unable to gain redress, life is too damned SHORT for that.
Here’s a great catch-22 in my nanny state that relates to your dilemma. Everyone is required to have insurance in Taxachusetts, can’t register your car without it. One of the compulsory items in your required policy is coverage in case of an UNinsured driver. Whaaat??
I guess that’s because of the illegals that don’t have licenses or insurance 😖
So the offending driver broke the law by not honoring his obligations and by not having insurance, right? So, in OUR society, how are you supposed to be compensated when the offending party goes into hiding?
Both societies would have the offending party held liable, but only one has you paying continuously when you are NOT liable. Make sense, or am I missing something?
That’s why you get coverage for the UN-insured and UNDER-insured. Most state liability requirements are a complete joke; and the Insurance “Mafia”, as Eric puts it, wants it that way. There’s a whole slew of the financially “dodgy” that likely are haphazard not only their driving and vehicle maintenance, but also car and insurance payments. Put it all together, and you simply can’t appeal to the State for redress against these cretins. Nor, due to the need for their cheap labor, or to keep “Walley-World” afloat, can these morons be relegated to walking or riding the bus as they deserve. So, it’s up to YOU to insure yourself against THEIR financial irresponsibility, or be prepared for a heavy loss when inevitably it comes
And what should happen to the financially irresponsible? We just shrug and hope they stay out of trouble?
Honestly, I am a little surprised by Jason, Live Free or Die, and your arguments. I would expect it out of the mouths of liberals, but not libertarians. I don’t believe people should be required to carry insurance, but I do believe people should be held able responsible for the damage that they cause. When we provide them an out the responsibility becomes that of the property owner who did nothing wrong.
Is it also acceptable for those that choose to carry medical insurance to also have to pay the increased costs to those that do not wish to pay their doctor bills? I do not have health insurance, but if I get sick I need to pay for the hospitals, doctors, and prescriptions that were used in my improvement. It should not have to be your responsibility, BaDnOn’s responsibility, or anyone else’s. This is the risk that I took. I pay the piper when its due.
“Honestly, I am a little surprised by Jason, Live Free or Die, and your arguments… but I do believe people should be held able responsible for the damage that they cause”.
Nothing written by Douglas, Live Free or Die or Jason even remotely implies that they don’t believe that “people shouldn’t be held responsible for the damage that they cause”. Each of them appeals to personal responsibility, and the reality of a perverted market.
Here is Doug’s post:
So, it’s up to YOU to insure yourself against THEIR financial irresponsibility, or be prepared for a heavy loss when inevitably it comes.”
Here is Jason’s post:
Jim, you would still have the option of voluntarily purchasing insurance to protect yourself against that situation much as you would protect against other hazards such as fire or theft.
Here is Live Free and Die’s post:
If you want to protect your property, insure it. Hands off your neighbors wallet, thief.
Please point out to me how it is my responsibility (or anyone else’s) to pay for damages caused by someone else?
I am not advocating going after my neighbor or society only the person responsible. Honestly, I am surprised anyone is against this.
Again, the arguments proffered are about the world as it exists. They are not claims that you have a moral responsibility “to pay for damages caused by someone else”. Nobody has said that.
Government has absolutely zero interest in having responsible people. Government wants irresponsible people so it can have more power.
Tell me, how is government going to make you or me whole due to the irresponsibility of another party? It won’t and it can’t.
Nothing to do with government. Government should not be involved. I am asking for restitution from the party that caused the damage (and my point is not just about me, but any person that is harmed my someone else’s carelessness) and doesn’t wish to make amends.
I will be happy to visit his home and do likewise to his fence and front yard and then he can clean it up or keep it as is.
I don’t care that the guy did not have insurance. That is his choice and I will happily support him for not having it. Since he caused the damage I should have received a $4K check or he should have been here the next day cleaning up and repairing my fence. He did none of those things.
“Since he caused the damage I should have received a $4K check or he should have been here the next day cleaning up and repairing my fence”.
Of course you should have, no one is arguing otherwise.
My property backs up to the on/off ramp for RT 22 which is a fairly major state rt from newark out to PA. I have a privacy fence along the back. Between me, my next door neighbor and his next door neighbor we have had 5 cars come through our fences in the last 12 years. Of those 5 only 1 was caught because the kid did it in the middle of the day. The 2 that came through my fence both ironcally happened 3 years apart the night before Thanksgiving Day between 2 and 6am. The 2nd time they clearly had to use a winch to get the car out. I got stuck both times with the bill and just did the work myself because it didn’t make sense to even attempt to go through the insurance company. Funny thing is my neighbor petitioned the state to extend the guardrail (it stops right before my property) and the state initially agreed until 1 engineer said 5 cars is 12 years isn’t enough to justify the guardrail extension. I”ve now added a security camera to the area so i can at least get license plate #s when it inevitable happens again.
I feel your pain. My business is on a major highway with a traffic light that continually gets backed up in the evening. People are looking at their phone, picking up their Skittles, or just in la la land. Friday afternoons are the worst. It is a little terrifying hearing a big rig’s tires locking up as he tries to brake because he isn’t paying attention to the road ahead and cars are stopped. During the summer (with everyone heading out for the weekend) it is accident central. Three damaged fences in five years. Two, just this year!
I tried calling our Department of Transportation to also get guard rails, but still cannot get a call back. I would love to put up a jersey barrier if I could afford it…..they would stop picking my parking lot to veer off into. 🙂
That is pretty bad that out of five cars you were only able to catch one. Some people have no problem causing damage and then speeding away as if nothing happened. It is a sad world we live in.
Test your camera to see if it has the resolution to read a license plate. Many do not, especially if the vehicle is moving even at a modest parking lot speed.
Anyway for both of you it sounds like the solution can be found with a BFR. Big F’ing Rock.
Agree. Make the barrier/fence into a real obstacle. Many in my area use BFTs as well. I’ve seen Leyland Cypress stop a car quick.
And maybe not. My mail box used to be mounted on a railroad tie 4′ in the ground, by the previous owner. Living on the outside of a two lane blacktop curve, the inevitable happened. It did not stop the car long enough to catch the culprit, since they acquired means to recover it before I got home. But, it did take them for a ride. The railroad tie did NOT break, consequently launching the offending car into the air, and per the point of landing, travelled about 30-35′ before it came back t earth. That I would love to have on video, along with a closeup of the drivers face upon exit.
Please read my other response on this subject, RG.
Fortunately, no state REQUIRES that you get Under/Un-insured motorist coverage; its your own risk assessment as to how much do you stand to lose due to UNrecoverable losses? Sure, WHEN the justice system is perfectly administered, torts will be property adjudicated and satisfied. THe reality is that there’s some claims that can’t be recovered, save you send “Uncle Tony” and “Paulie” to have a “little chat” with those deadbeats. And there’s a lot of folks UNDER-insured, so they meet the legal requirements, but that doesn’t BEGIN to compensate you properly.
I’m simply pointing out the market does have a solution…but it’ll COST you. Simply weigh the VALUE of it, and as long as it’s a product freely offered, and you FREELY accept, I don’t see an issue re: Libertarian values there.
Unfortunately Taxachusetts does require uninsured motorist coverage even though it also requires everyone to have insurance. A regular catch-22.
Nope, you are right, BaDnOn. The crux of the argument is you (as a responsible adult) shall continue to pay insurance premiums and deductibles not to cover your errors, but also to cover someone else’s.
I see there was a whole lot of noise and did catch that Jason said at the end of his post: “I am not advocating going after my neighbor or society only the person responsible.” Perhaps there should have been a comma in between “society” and “only the person responsible”. In short, I don’t think anyone is advocating that someone can damage your property and “get away with it”.
There are consequences for what libertarians would call “violating the non-aggression principle”. And some goofball crashing into your fence or your car is violating that principle, even if they didn’t intend to. This is one of the few things libertarians would argue that the government SHOULD do (get the bastard to pay for his/her misdeeds), though some would argue for a “stateless” solution.
Those are my words, not Jason’s. I should have made that clearer by putting quotes around their words, but I did a quick copy and paste.
My words start at “Please point out…..and ends with the quote above in your reference.
Your own post above asks Jim “So the offending driver broke the law by not honoring his obligations and by not having insurance, right? So, in OUR society, how are you supposed to be compensated when the offending party goes into hiding?”
I was just agreeing with you.
I am a little flabbergasted by the entire thread. I do not believe government needs to be involved at all. I expect those responsible to be responsible and consequences to arise when they are not. I also expect those that look after themselves and their property not have to be directly impacted financially for someone’s mishap.
This notion of expecting those who are responsible to be responsible or face consequences without the involvement of force (gov’t) is not impossible but, due to human nature, is quite utopian. In the world we live in, with gov’t, gov’t must be involved in order for you to hold another person who is recalcitrant accountable using force. Then there’s AnCapistan, where you or your privately contracted agents would use force against another who trespassed against you in order to hold them accountable… perhaps personally via actual physical violence or perhaps via some contractually agreed to private court of arbitration. This “stateless” world is worth imagining but one would need many more paragraphs to flesh it out in its entirety.
There is an assumption here I’d like to question, viz: That irresponsible people are ever held responsible by the things which keep responsible people from behaving irresponsibly. What I mean is: People like you and I (and other responsible people) have both the means and the moral sense to make good any harms we cause; more fundamentally, responsible people rarely cause harm. The example of guns is illustrative. We handle our firearms responsibly; we commit no crimes with them, cause no harm. But we’re bound by a litany of obnoxious rules/fees/bureaucracy – which do nothing at all to thwart the irresponsible from using guns recklessly or criminally.
Insurance is of a piece. I have paid thousands in yet caused not one cent to be paid out in consequence of harms I’ve caused.
It gets old.
Meanwhile, a douchebag relative of a friend of mine just got his fourth DWI conviction. Do you suppose he gives a damn about insurance? Or any other laws, for that matter?
I’m not quite connecting the dots on your question(s) but here goes. It’s true “gun control” laws only apply to and fees only mulct the law abiding and criminals don’t care. Mandatory insurance, as opposed to voluntary, is a scam and I too resent monies paid out by me for it in absence of actual harm. As for DUI guy, IDK. Irrespective of how we might feel about such laws, it sounds like he’s in for a world of hurt financially and administratively, at a minimum. Whether he gives a damn about that or the laws is immaterial.
This guy – the serial DWI guy – is a loser with no job who lives with (and off) relatives. He has nothing they can take, doesn’t care about the job he hasn’t got. So the courts and system can do essentially nothing – that matters, to him – to him. Sure, they can toss him in the clink for a few months; free cable and food as far as he is concerned. Then it’s out – and drive (ripped) again.
That’s my point as regards insurance.
Like you, I have no fundamental problem with the concept. I think insurance can be a good thing. But it becomes a very bad thing, indeed, when it is forced – because it forces responsible people to pay and pay and pay for harms they don’t cause, for the profit of rent-seeking cartels.
A free man ought to be able to say no. And – of course – bear any consequences, good and bad.
But if he is not free to say it, then he is not free.
Sorry. Very error, much confuse.
Anyway, what you said at the end. Hopefully that’s what everyone else actually means, too. :p Too busy today to comb through long threads, though I love the conversation.
The financially irresponsible have financially irresponsible insurance coverage or simply don’t obey the law. The laws do nothing in the end.
Huh, guess I started an interesting conversation. Wasn’t my intention, but what the heck…
And it looks like others have had a similar problem that I’ve had. It’s what I would call the Irresponsible F*ckwad Problem (IFP for short). And apart from a totalitarian, completely controlled society, there is no solution for it (and who in their right mind would advocate for a totalitarian society?). Guess this is a question to pose to pie-in-the-sky, overly optimistic, utopian libertarians, particularly anarchistic types.
I would go back to the founders (John Adams, I think) who said that the republic that resulted from the Constitution (or any freedom-loving society) is only fit for moral people. The immoral will screw it up for the rest of us.
I think we do ourselves a disservice when we say there is no solution. Two generations ago (and longer) these things did not occur. The problem is some people have lost their moral compass. We know the government will not enforce the law so bother with a judge and jury. The courts are a joke.
Two days ago, a young father, 21 years of age, vacationing in Miami with his family, stepped in front of a thug who was pointing a gun at his one year old son. The thug shot the father multiple times. After killing a man in cold blood what did the prick do….danced. What will be the outcome? Maybe 20 years in jail for the murderer? Thoughts and prayers to the victim’s family? A generation ago the jerk would have never left the restaurant alive. Look at places like Chicago, DC, San Fran, and NYC. Robbery occurs in broad daylight and no one does anything. Little old ladies are pushed over, men are stabbed in the streets, and children are caught between an exchange of gunfire.
A century ago if a man stole your horse you had the right to hang him and bury the body behind the house. Today, victims and their families hands are tied. The penalty is worse for the injured than the perpetrator. Putting more laws on the books is irrelevant when enforcement is non existent.
When consequences are not enforced one cannot be surprised when more bad apples spring up. It is a decay of society. When people shrug their shoulders and tell us “That is just the way it is.” That’s sad. Those are not words of people who wish to insight change, but are quitters.
What you’re pointing out, RG, is that often these things were settled w/o having “law enforcement” getting involved, so if some cretin got his ass shot by some guy he shouldn’t have “fooked with”, the local cops just shrugged their shoulders and had the coroner pick up the body, figuring that the annoyed citizen had essentially done their job ahead of them and saved the taxpayers the trouble and costs of prosecution and incarceration.
Look, I lament that, in fact, law enforcement and the courts are an utter JOKE when it comes to personal protection and seeking redress as much as you do. I further lament that acts of self-defense, including the Second Amendment itself, are being vigorously attacked by these same elitists that likewise APOLOGIXE for the criminal element. So, politically, we’ve got a LOT of work to do just to get back to a modicum of common sense. But we can’t necessarily wait for that utopian day, the question is, what do we do NOW, while we’re fighting the good fight? Please don’t posture on your high horse nor get snotty with me b/c I point out the truth and offer common sense advice, the issue is to live, and live well, not who’s “holier than thou” from a Libertarian standpoint.
My post above was not directed at you, but Americans in general. I am sorry that you are offended and you are reading something more into it than it is.
On a side note telling me to get off my high horse and not get snotty with you is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You can choose to debate or not.
Why must things be settled with law enforcement in this day and age? Why must the courts get involved? My can’t people be adults and handle the matters themselves? I am merely pointing out the deterioration of civilization. What is happening in society starts with smallest of crimes and then snowballs. We are seeing this today. Do you believe crime has not increased? Do you believe this is acceptable? Are you hoping society will fix itself? It won’t unless the general public takes action. I am not okay with what is going on and I refuse to stand by and shrug my shoulders time and time again. The country is the way it is because good people stood still.
I don’t think people need to take on the government, they are screwed up enough, and will create their own demise When we stand back and watch people loot stores, kill people in public, keep our children in indoctrination camps, find it acceptable to put on a mask and get a jab because someone else told us to…..we are part of the problem.
You stated above the point is to live. Live for what? This? The world crumbling around us? Our government overtaking our fundamental natural freedoms? Having the bad guys win time and time again? Is this living? Can you honestly look around and say this is the world we want to leave our children? People accuse my of dreaming of a utopia. We are not even close to utopia. We are just short of a third world shithole.
Also, since you asked for suggestions I am willing to offer some (these are not directed toward you, but people in general):
1. If you have a child in public schools….pull them out….now. Enroll them in a private school, a charter school, a virtual school, or homeschool. Provide them the education that they are worthy of by instructors capable of teaching. A five year does not need to understand CRT, the 27 different genders, and have a mask on their face eight hours a day, five days a week.
2. Avoid buying from businesses that do not believe in your principles. Walmart is not your friend and would be the first to implement a vaccine passport for you to shop for cheap Chinese goods. Amazon will happily take your money and donate it to left wing organizations that will continue to decrease your freedoms. They secretly laugh at you as you are the one funneling your own demise.
3. Become independent of the system (or at least do what you are able to do). Purchase a few solar panels to generate a small amount of electricity if the grid was to go down, purchase your own propane/natural gas tanks so you can shop around, learn to grow some of your own food (even a few tomato plants on the balcony is a start).
4. Your boss is requiring a jab and you don’t want it. It may be a good time to go separate ways. Your health and principles deserve better.
5. Own and carry a firearm at all times (unless you have a black belt in karate, then you are exempt). If we need to accept the increase in time, we should be able to protect ourselves at all times….especially women. If you are a woman and don’t know how to shoot straight or have a CCW now is the time.
Very good right up until the last sentence. Do NOT get a CCW- you don’t need permission to be armed- the second amendment is the law and all the crap in defiance of it is null and void.
Could you get arrested? Yes. Can you avoid getting arrested for anything some enforcer or government stooge wants? Not a chance. NOT A CHANCE. They surrendered all legitimacy, be smart and aware and don’t worry about it.
Getting permission to exercise an absolute right does nothing good- it legitimizes their illegitimate rules. It is tactically unwise as it marks you. It obligates you to follow all their rules and not carry many places where you are most likely to need it (I couldn’t stop the school shooter because I obeyed and called 911…)
Four out five, isn’t bad. 😉
I suggest the CCW for women since many women really don’t have experience with a firearm and the CCW training classes are actually really good.
If someone does not wish to get the CCW that is fine and understandable, but people who do not feel comfortable with a gun should have the necessary training on proper stance, loading and unloading, cleaning, and most importantly, how to shoot accurately.
My husband tried to teach me, but I caught on better learning from strangers with sniper backgrounds 🙂
My beloved Snips, 4′-11″ and 97 pounds, “soaking wet”, even though she was a very proficient gymnast as a young lady and is still in great enough to have that “dancer’s rear”, would surprise most with her proficiency with firearms. She never goes anywhere w/o her CZ sidearm, chambered in .32 ACP, or her Ruger.
It’s amazing how many gun-grabbers likewise profess to have the interests of “womyn” at heart, while denying them an essential means of self-defense!
Jim, Jim, Jim – Why the snark towards libertarians, particularly of the anarchist persuasion? Who is truly a utopian in comparison? This is what Rothbard had to say: The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.
Thought experiment: Take the absolute smallest infraction that you can think of (I use an unpaid library late-book fine), LET IT SIT, and after enough time and escalation, ARMED MEN will break down your door and haul you away. This will happen with 100% certainty.
I an now constantly thinking of The Clash, “The Guns of Brixton”: “When the kick at your front door, how you gonna come, with your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun…”
And because of that condition laws are selectively enforced. The selection is in both the laws and who they are enforced upon. This is why nobody ends up being shot by police over a library book unless of course it was someone they were looking to nail on something and that’s all they could find. This way people keep their illusions about the law.
Harry Browne, 1933-2006, was indeed a great man, fine Libertarian, and not appreciated in his time. To borrow from Chicago’s 1975 tune, “America needs you”….”America needs you, Harry Browne…Harry you knew what to do…”
Insurance, sold PRIVATELY in a FREE Market, can perform a useful function, not only to insulate the insureds against calamity, but also as a means of popular investment, especially in a mutual company. Naturally, as with all other transactions, “Caveat Emptor” should be the governing rule, both in what the policy says and HOW it’s SOLD. At least, and partly thanks to the 1944 McCrarran Act, insurance has been left to the several states, and most have done a reasonable job of regulation…not the least b/c most state employee unions, teacher unions, and other public trough feeders at the state and municipal level depend on the services of a healthy financial services industry, as not even California in its heyday, and certainly not now, could be in a position to self-insure its workforce and retirees.
Getting the Federal Government involved is a recipe for disaster. Have we learned NOTHING from “Social (IN)Security, Medicare, and Obamacare? It’s going to be a major battle to rescind those Ponzi schemes and outright frauds. Harry Browne at least had the right idea re: Social Security. Pick a cut-off age, say, 35 to 40, and just say, too bad, you’re “out”, we can’t afford it when it’s YOUR “turn”. Make a sliding scale so those too old will at least get something, and current and near retires should at least get something on the order of what they were promised, with the funds to be had by the sale of numerous Federal properties (including vast tracts of LAND out West) and assets that it shouldn’t have had in the first place, and private annuities purchased.
Of course, the political reality is that Congress, Dummycrats and Republicvnts alike, can’t simply use a surfeit of funds to pay off Federal debt, but rather, they’re like toddlers in a candy store. Who’s to say how such a scheme would have worked out, w/o a Congress of die-hard Libertarians, and Browne in the White House, devoted to restoring fiscal responsibility and sanity to America once again. The sheer irony of the whole SS thing is that some 25 to 20 years ago, thanks to the “Boomers” being in the prime earning years, before the first of them turned 62 (2008) and starting hitting the SS system like a W88 thermonuclear warhead, carried aboard a Trident D5 SLBM, launched from good ol’ SSN-734, the Tennessee. Note that year…NOT necessarily a COINCIDENCE! The Congress COULD have used the “surplus” to retire quite a bit of Federal debt, making the T-Bills that SS funds supposedly purchase (it’s all financial sleight-of-hand) more desirable financial instruments. Clinton, giddy from whatever Monica Lewinsky did to put that shit-eating grin on his face, instead opened the checkbook, and “Newt”, the “Gingrich that stole Christmas”, went right along. I’d say that was the “tipping point”, and there’s little we can do to evade the financial disaster that looms.
Keep building that chicken coop, and a hothouse, Eric, and have plenty of AMMO to defend it…you may HAVE to!
‘So tell me again, where is this social contract I don’t remember signing’ — John Kable
It is located — I am not making this up — in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in Washington DC.
‘We the people,‘ a bunch of guys in Philadelphia scribbled in 1787, claiming to speak for all even as they defied their brief to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap the Articles.
Anti-federalists (my people!) howled about this broad-daylight bait-and-switch, but as usual, the conspiratorial centralizers of power weren’t going to be stopped.
Several states including Virginia expressly reserved the right to secede if this new social contract was violated. It was, and they did, but Virginia’s codicil to the contract too was trashed by the gaunt, vacant-eyed Ape [sic] Lincoln.
Now the Bill of Rights serves only as a hit list. All ten amendments have been severely eroded, with the crucial Tenth (reserving all undelegated powers to the states and people) completely annihilated by servile hacks in black.
Bottom line, the alleged social contract has been rendered NULL AND VOID because of flagrant, repeated breaches of it by the lawless US fedgov, conceived in the original sin of the runaway 1787 convention, and grown into a hideous, devouring monster.
Even that hallowed document would never had been signed by even the most ardent Federalist, Alexander Hamilton himself, had he’d seen what the Congress and those nine, black-robed dictators across on First ST NE in the “District of Criminals” would hornswoggle it into being. More or less, as you pointed out, it’s been conveniently disregarded, especially the TENTH Amendment, and yes, Lincoln sealed the fate of the VOLUNTARY with his (un)Civil War on the Confederacy.
“…those nine, black-robed dictators”.
I think of them as the Nazgul.
You know your Star Trek…”All Hail the Salla!”
I was referring to the nine servants of Sauron, bound to serve the power of the “one ring”.
“Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie”.
I don’t know the Star Trek episode, is it called “All Hail the Salla”?
It’s actually from a four-issue DC comci book story arc about Star Trek, set in the latter part of the original series timeline (like, between movies 4, 5, and 6). THe “Nasgul” (maybe the servants of Sauron is where the comic story writers got the name) were a race of yellow-skinned, rather hideous-looking aliens that were undergoing a civil war, including a running battle between siblings…and involving one Harcourt Fenton Mudd, “Entrepreneur”.
Thanks, I didn’t know that. In Tolkien, the Nazgul are nine former kings of men, seduced by power and enslaved by Sauron and the “one ring” (the State). They are black robed, near immortal wraiths who serve to protect and advance the power of Sauron. They fly above us all, on their monstrous steeds, striking terror in the hearts of men. Though I doubt that Tolkien intended the reference, whenever I see pictures of the nine, black robed, deities, I always imagine the Nazgul.
Lincoln disposed of the Constitution by unilaterally outlawing secession. Which was the major tool States had to enforce it. “Play by the rules or we’re leaving”. You will not find my signature on that document, nor my signature on any other document granting the signatories authority to sign in my name. So the question remains.
In the end, MIGHT made “right”, and the Confederate State discovered that the Constitution they’d THOUGHT they’d signed as an instrument to make the revamped Federal Government a more efficient SERVANT, instead, like Vader vs. Kenobi, made it a terrible MASTER. I.E., the signers of the Constitution, back in September of 1787, and the respective state legislators didn’t realize it at the time, that they were signing an instrument of SURRENDER. General Lee signing such a document at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 was merely an affirmation of what, de facto, already existed, though it ought never to have been. The several states and their citizens were HOODWINKED!
A couple of points, the world improvers have a taken a tiny kernel of truth ie ‘accidents can happen’ and over the course of decades changed that narrative to danger danger, everywhere danger. looking back I don’t suppose I ever needed insurance at all. The last time I crashed a car I was 18. Insurance is one of those slippery slopes that allowed for us to slide down into this pit we now live in.
I like the argument that there is no ‘society.’ It is all propped up by the evil idea: ‘From each according to his ability, to everyone else according to their need.’ I as well never signed on or agreed to any social contract. I did however honor others right to believe this foolishness as gospel. It now means no more to me than the product of my shredder. The worst part of this deal is how it has morphed into the idea that I must live my life for others. I am not responsible for the sickness of others. I am responsible for me and my own continued wellness alone. If this means that I cant continue to live in peace then so be it.
The law no longer exists as defined by society. If we all keep our resolve, and our weapons, then some civility will remain. I am no longer bound by the law of the jungle. Only the law of the land ie don’t murder, rape, steal, that sort of stuff. And as we move forward through this dystopian nightmare the line between murder and self defense may become just another blurred line.
As a side I still remember Voting for Harry Browne and trying to convince people to do likewise. Not that voting mattered, probably even back then. It was an easy choice against those wretches Clinton, Dole, Bush, Gore. It was so easy I wish more had done it. Just like refusing to wear a diaper in the early days of this recent unpleasantness.
I love your new turn of phrase “cinnamon gibbon.’ It fits him to a T.
Excellent libertarian observation.
Personally, I feel the same way about “drunk driving”, which is more or less a thoughtcrime – “pre-crime” – the way it’s conceived and enforced these days.
If you have an accident and damage property or injure or kill someone else, then there should be harsh consequences. That’s just and that’s the way the law already works.
But there is no reason to make someone’s behavior before the accident the basis for more punishment. It doesn’t matter how much a person drinks or not. An accident is an accident and damages are damages.
“Hate crime” laws work the same way, FWIW. There’s no basis to punish someone for what they are thinking.
Another facet of this business that’s of interest is the arbitrariness of it. A “drunk” is the object of much scorn but the merely incompetent driver – who may be far more dangerous – is regarded with great indulgence. Why? Does it make it any better to be killed by a near-sighted, inept fool rather than by a “drunk”?
I have yet to receive a good – sensible – answer to this question.
If half the lethal auto accidents are caused by drunk drivers, guess whose causing the other half. Maybe they should be required to have a drink before they drive. Makes as much sense.
Several years ago, Mythbusters did a comparison of driving ability between intoxicated driver and cell phone talking driver. The cell phone driver lost. and this did not include texting. But you can put the cell phone down when you please. If your addiction allows. Which is of no comfort to those who suffer the results of your self distraction. Hang the drunk driver Cell phone addict driver go on with your life.
It’s been my observation that even the “hands-free” features that my 2020 (con)Fusion enables with my “Sail Fawn” (thank you, Eric) still don’t entirely eliminate it as a DISTRACTION from driving. I take pains to avoid making unnecessary calls when motoring, and am careful to make myself pay attention to the road when an incoming call can’t be shrugged off, or simply let it go to VM.
But that’s a matter of taking Clint Eastwood’s advice from “Magnum Force”..”A man’s gotta know his LIMITATIONS”, and not an overt acts of obeisance towards the road Mounties.
Don’t get me started…though I’m a strict “tee-totaler” when it comes to getting behind the wheel (as Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” advised in the 1973 film, “Magnum Force”…”A man’s gotta know his limitations…”), there are quite a few drivers that DO driver BETTER when they’ve had a few. I’m reminded of the German Pentathlon champion who chugged down a liter of rather stout brew from his Stein, and fifteen minutes later won the SHOOTING competition. Later this man’s nerve would be tested on the Eastern Front, commanding a Panzergrenadier battalion.
I could see that, regarding the German marksman. Silencing that adrenaline spike could aid one greatly in such a competition.
Driving angry is arguably more dangerous and driving “drunk”, and pint or two might aid one in letting bygones be bygones as well, and encouraging a serene drive home.
Also, even notice that a “sobriety test” has nothing to do with driving? Perhaps if they set up some slalom cones, or maybe tested your reaction off the drag race tree?..
‘When the government requires you to buy something (or take something) it is prima facie evidence there is probably something wrong with it.’ — EP
Israel’s horrific — arguably sadistic — large-scale medical experiment with the Pfizer-Fubar vaccine just gets worse and worse.
Since its triple-vaxxing campaign began on July 30th, Israel’s daily ‘case’ rate has ripped from 221 per million people to 906 per million yesterday — a more than fourfold increase. Only four other small countries have a higher ‘case’ rate. This chart don’t lie:
Soon, a booster jab will be required to obtain an Apartheid Green Pass, valid for only six months until (presumably) the next booster arrives. Bend over, here it comes again!
If any actual scientists remain, they had better speak up and demand that Israel’s nihilistic Pfizer-Mengele medical experimentation STOP before it sickens the entire population, including them.
Israel is in tight with Pfizer. Its December 2020 deal with Pfizer gave Israel early deliveries of vaccine, in return for Pfizer getting access to Israel’s national health care database.
Israel’s digitized, decades-long trove of data is gathered from a mandatory [see Eric’s quote above] universal health care system involving four not-for-profit HMOs.
Unquestionably, Israel is a test bed for US policy. What happens there will guide fanatical vaxaholics here, who are impervious to the inconvenient fact that Israel’s triple-vax program may rank as its worst-ever public health disaster.
In re Israel: It seems to me persuasive that the “vaccines” are making people susceptible to sickness, if not the actual source of sickness. I cannot compute another explanation for runaway sickness (well, “cases”) among a population 90 percent “vaccinated.” It does not register that the handful of unvaxxed could make the other 90 percent sick. Either the “vaccine” is useless – or it is dangerous. Possibly both.
One hypothesis is that a non-sterilizing vaccine, by allowing heavy viral loads to develop in vaccinated people who don’t get sick, turns them into super-spreaders.
That is, not only do ‘leaky’ vaccines NOT stop the spread, they actually enhance the spread.
‘Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.
‘Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between vaccinated people.’
Read it and weep, Israel. Pfizer punked your ass, big time.
Pfizer, through the Israeli government, punked the Israeli people.
“It does not register that the handful of unvaxxed could make the other 90 percent sick.”
If they are actually sick…or just ephemeral “cases.”
The scenario also begs the question, why didn’t the “unvaxxed” (which was everyone until early this year), create a health crisis before the jab was available? No overflowing hospitals, nightingales and naval ships were unused and empty. There was never any verifiable indication of a health crisis anywhere, worldwide.
This is a pandemic of lies, not illness. To the extent that there is illness erupting now, it can be traced in a straight line back to the jabs.
Jim and Eric,
Have you seen the discrepancy between Israel’s data and Palestine’s? Should be that Palestine should be doing much worse, being that they are much poorer and largely unvaccinated, right? Not what the data says. It could be simple lag in data or infection, but this is strange, given that the two states essentially coexist geographically.
What gives, indeed?
You trust EITHER party to tell the TRUTH? I wouldn’t!
Perhaps it is as simple as God being just. Also known as karma.
I thought “karma” was a BITCH. Then again, as the Feminazis crow, when “Gawd” made “man”, it was with the intention of learning the “mistakes” with the PROOTYPE before the “finished” product, i.e. WOMAN.
Karma can be a bitch. If you deserve a bitch. Or a benefactor if you deserve a benefactor.
You misspelled Femmunist…
As to woman being an improvement over man, I think a better argument would be that man was the prototype and woman was the beta test. He generally improved the form, but unfortunately also added some counterproductive code. Your mileage, of course, may, and should vary.
Who can say in an entire nation of six million whiny hypochondriacs?
Vaccines spread disease by turning vaccinated people into super spreaders.
Have you noticed that children were not getting the coof until their parents brought the so called virus home after taking the poison needle?
Usually the seasonal flu and the common cold do not affect people in August when the weather is warm and people are getting natural vitamin d.
The experimental injection is spreading disease.
That is interesting- and terrifying. It means – obviously – that those of us who have acted prudently and neither “mask” nor submit to the Jab are threatened by the mere vicinity of those who did and have. And it means it will be hard to separate out the source of the trouble, which will be blamed on us, the people who have refused to play Kabuki – though (if you are right) it will be those who did play it who are responsible for “the spread” of the new “variants.”
It’s be one hell of an ironic twist if that’s so, right?
Don’t let panic nor wild-assed assertions drive you, Eric. Beware, also, of DISINFORMATION. Who’s to say that already the “Deep State” doesn’t have its “informants” and “infiltrators” within these “resistance cells”, not only to ferret them out, but, more important from their view, to DISCREDIT them? Stick to (air quotes)..”THE Science!”.
Every single government on the planet is based on the assumption it has sole authority to kill you if you don’t comply. Every time you pay a car insurance premium, you do so at gunpoint. You may want such insurance, but never the less, the gun is there and its loaded. So tell me again, where is this social contract I don’t remember signing that makes my property someone else’s, or every one else’s property?