Everyone knows the cost of “covering” a vehicle – that is, the cost of the insurance everyone who owns a vehicle is forced to buy – has outpaced even the cost of inflation, which is powerful evidence that something other than the devaluation of the purchasing power of the currency we’re forced to pay for things with is to blame.
That something other is, of course, the cost of new vehicles – even if you don’t own one.
The average price paid for a new vehicle is around $15,000 higher than it was just three years ago – bringing the average price paid for a new vehicle to about $50,000 – and someone’s got to pay for that. Meaning, everyone is paying more for the anticipated and actual costs of repairing/replacing these much-more-expensive vehicles. Including those of us who have not bought one. We’re paying more to the insurance mafia because the mafia does not want to lose money on the payouts it may (and will) make to repair/replace vehicles that cost $50,000.
So we’re all paying more for that.
But why should we have to? Put another way, no one has to buy a $50,000 vehicle (let alone an $80,000 EeeeeeeeeVeeeee) just as no one has to buy a $500,000 house. This is not to say no one should – assuming they want to and assuming they have the means. We are not envy-eaten Communists, after all. Well, some of us aren’t. But the point here is that in a free country, people ought to be free to buy whatever they want and are able to pay for. But what’s happening is people who do not want it are being made to pay for it, via government-mandated insurance that enables the insurance mafia to offload the potential and actual costs incurred or that might be occurred by others onto the shoulders of those who did not choose to incur them.
Note the italics.
Most of us need to have a vehicle and that means we have to buy insurance because the government has decreed we have to buy it as a condition of being allowed to use its roads (this idea that the roads are “public” is as silly as the idea that a restaurant forced to disallow smoking within is “private” property). The argument is that we might cause damage/harm to others and so we have an obligation to indemnify against this possibility. It is an obnoxious (to freedom) idea that imposes punishments prior to any harm having been caused because some people fear that harm might happen and that those who cause it might not pay the cost of it. Freedom requires the acceptance of risk, even if harm is sometimes the result. It just means harm isn’t imposed on all, particularly the bulk of people who don’t harm anyone.
Why not require people who own a dog and wish to walk it in “public” also indemnify against the possibility that their dog might bite someone? It is probably only a matter of time before there is such a requirement – and more like that.. Because the precedent has already been established.
If it were rejected, then the problem is addressed. People who do cause harm by their actions get held accountable for them. It will never happen, of course – because that would mean allowing freedom again. So we’re stuck with this pernicious business of forcing everyone to buy car insurance. In that case, a case can be made that no one needs to have a $50,000 vehicle or even one that costs more $30,000. Nice to have, of course, if you have the means and it is something you want. But why should anyone else have to “cover” the potential or even the actual costs of repairing/replacing the expensive ride you chose to buy?
It is one thing, in other words, to require that everyone who drives a vehicle indemnify against the possibility of damaging someone else’s property. It is another to demand that they “cover” the possibility of repairing optionally expensive property.
This latter is driving people who don’t buy expensive vehicles out of driving – which is probably the intention. Owning and driving a vehicle was once for the affluent-only because vehicles were much to expensive to buy for working and middle class people. 
Then Henry Ford came along with a very affordable car that enabled almost literally anyone to own a car – and so was born the era of everyone who wanted to own a car being able to own a car. Then along came mandatory (and so, predatory) insurance – this began in the ’70s – and it became more and more expensive to keep a car.
It is on the verge of becoming unaffordable – for people who could otherwise afford to buy a vehicle that doesn’t cost $50,000 or more. Whether this is deliberate or just an unintended side effect of forcing everyone to buy insurance, it is what’s happening.
Here’s a way to prevent it from happening:
Adjust the legal requirement that everyone who owns a vehicle purchase liability-only coverage that covers a maximum of $30,000 to in repair/ replacement costs to someone else’s vehicle. But leave it up to people who choose to buy a vehicle worth more than $30,000 to pay extra to cover any repair/replacement costs that exceed $30,000. Let them buy a rider for additional coverage beyond the $30,000 maximum payout. They would not be required to – because the loss (if it occurs) would be theirs to bear. The point being they could no longer force others – via mandatory (and so predatory) insurance requirements – to bear them.
Some will of course ay this is unfair – to the people who choose to buy expensive vehicles. But forcing anyone to buy insurance is unfair on the face of it because it forces them to hand over money for harms they have not caused. It is extremely unfair to force people who are trying to live within or below their means to pay for the indulgences of the affluent.
Affluent people also ought to be free to choose to build a house on the beach. But when it gets washed out to sea, why should others – who chose not to build a house by the sea – have to pay for that?
Of course, it would be ideal if no one were forced to buy insurance – and people who do cause harm were held accountable for causing it. But the rest of us were free to be left in peace unless we did cause it.
That would be freedom. Unfortunately, most Americans prefer saaaaaaaaaaaaaafety. No matter how much it costs them.
. . .
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:
EPautos
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!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
You hit the nail on the head, Eric. Why work all day 5 days a week then 2 days to get ready to do it again, when it should be the opposite. Why is everything made difficult and time-consuming when it should be simple and quick. It has ALL been carefully orchestrated and implemented step-by-step, day by day for years, centuries actually. That’s why it’s so confusing that a false race/religion could continue its plans for control over everything on the earth from one century to the next–almost like they are being instructed by a long-lived demon they call lucifer or baal that lives in the Vatican’s secret torture dungeons where they make their adrenochrome.
So, Yes, learn the Law STEP BY STEP doesn’t matter how small it all adds up in the end.
I’ve worked on jobs building huge factories that the amount of equipment, machines, pipe lines, wiring, etc., etc., are inconceivable and you don’t even worry about it because the gigantic factory is put together piece by piece, step by step by the plans, and then you can stand back and look at it when it’s all done and say, “holy shit”.
You have to start somewhere and sometime if you think it’s important enough or be compelled by necessity after you get the jackboot off your neck. Step by step. It adds up until you have a ‘working knowledge’ that allows your understanding to take off. I used to say the same as you, but once I learned enough to see through the whole lawyer fraud and actually use the law and see the effects I had to learn more. You are right that it does consume a Lot of time but the secret is Motivation.
Learning enough to see that the Law is a massive highly calculated FRAUD conducted by BAR ‘ASSOCIATION’ attorners acting as private corporations, who are ESQUIRES- below a Knight and above a Gentleman- and then experiencing the attorner fraud first hand is good motivation to start. Sometimes you just have to Follow The Path That Leads To The Truth…
This is eye-opening: http://billsropesupply.com/woe_unto_you_lawyers-rodell.pdf
Interesting: http://billsropesupply.com/the_wizard_of_oz.pdf
Yes true statements Eric, but I keep saying your must learn The Law yourself. It’s not magic and it’s not all that hard to learn. It is Not what lawyers/attorners say it is. Not at all, it’s a trick. It is powerful knowledge that you can use discretely as appropriate to the situation. Cops are bad. It is possible to reason with a few, well it used to be, now they are more like jacked-up robots looking for a reason to shoot you.
Anything to do with any court must be documented by you on the Record of the Court and with the Clerk of Court. Sworn Affidavits stand as fact if not refuted, and Notices and Motions must be addressed by the Court. Also, I wore a t-shirt, clean from the hamper, to court every hearing and a trial, jeans and work boots also. Never wore a mask not once and was the only and I mean only person in the entire courthouse not wearing a face-diaper for 6 months of bullshit hearings or more, including lawyers, judges, state troopers ,etc. How did I do it? I know the Law.
I’ve had several judges Disqualified or Recused from cases, had one blocked from re-election by exposing his conflicts of interest, and had one Removed From The Bench by exposing that he was altering the Record of the Court to affect judgements and cases. I used screen-shots from the online record system and filed a Motion For Judicial Clarification that asked for clarification of these changes to the Record, equal to a priest changing the words of the bible. Sent the evidence to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the ‘State Of’ Supreme Court, waited a week till Friday to file the Motion with the Clerk and a copy to the Chief Judge. The Judge publicly resigned Monday Morning! True fact. I won both bogus cases these bullshit cops tried to falsely pin on me by tactfully and carefully using the Law to win my cases. Most people would have just paid the fines! I sued QuikTrip Corporation in Federal Court by myself and won- – a story for another time.
Excellent stuff, Bill –
And you’re right. It is important – perhaps critically so – to know the law. The difficulty, of course, is that average person has to find the time. I know this comes across as an excuse or even lazy. Maybe it is. I know in my case I have all I can handle just keeping up with work – and keeping the “farm” going. I’m here at my desk usually by 4 in the morning and spend most of the day here, in between doing necessary things outside and then coming back in for more. I often think wistfully about what it must have been like to be gentleman farmer 200 years ago, when a man who worked hard in his 20s could be financially at ease – owner of his little kingdom – by the time he was 40 and spend the rest of his years in pursuit of what used to be called useful knowledge.
As opposed to worrying about paying bills.
What’s the difference between being shot with an ‘illegal stolen gun’ or asserting ‘you had the right-of-way’ when that dump-truck t-boned you or being run over or into by an illegal-alien with no license and no insurance, and driving a stolen car? hehe
Trick question for the bots.
Another aspect of the insurance scam is that you do not ‘own’ the ‘vehicle’ you think you own. “Vehicle” is another trick word to cover over “conveyance” and “automobile” anyway, but if you have a state Title you do not own that truck, car, whatever. You gave the ‘vehicle’ to the state who now has Legal title, and you have what is known as ‘Equitable title’ (and the right to use it as if you actually owned it). Then you ‘register’ it with the state so you can use it on the state’s ‘public’ roads if you agree to become a ‘Driver’. You’re already a ‘person’ and one of the ‘public’ and a ‘citizen’, U.S., yes?, a taxpayer, a consumer, voter, probably an ‘extremist’. hehe
If you buy a vehicle from a manufacturer or directly from a dealer without a ‘title’ you get a Statement Of Origin and you actually own it all by your private self. Lots of 4-wheelers, tractors, farm and construction equipment are sold without titles and only a bill of sale. If you want you can buy a new 4-wheeler with no sales tax and no title to use on the farm or off-road, and you get the Statement Of Origin to take home with you. If you want you can apply for a title and pay the sales tax later, or not.
The reason you gave up (let them take) your natural right to travel freely by any conveyance on any road is the same reason you pay the insurance, i.e., 1. The cops nowadays are not smart enough to know the law or understand it even if you prove it to them and are just grunts and “law enforcers”. 2. Not Complying is normally not worth the price of being dragged out of your car, beaten and tased, then locked in a cage and/or being shot by a roid-raged super-trooper in full tacti-cool military gear. Anyway.
Hi Bill,
I agree with all you’ve written – in principle. But (as you’ve noted) it does not matter as a practical matter. If you do not have all the paperwork the cop says you must have he will (at the very least) hand you a ticket (or several) and odds are good he’ll impound the vehicle and possibly you along with it. The judge won’t listen to you, either. The law is power – and they have it.
I follow your logic up to a point. I would reverse the hypothetical and ask why should any value be mandated for insurance? You either force everyone to buy insurance or you don’t, there’s no number that changes the underlying ethical question.
A similar question would be that if taking 100% of the fruits of your labor is slavery then at what number less than this is it just income tax?
But taking the point that any purchase should be voluntary then would not collective insurance be an option one might reasonably choose to buy? The concept may be flawed to the extent that you’re probably financially better off just saving money to pay for the unexpected. Still, there are arguments that paying a little reoccurring amount into a collective fund with a lot of others to reduce the cost of relative risk isn’t wholly irrational. Like you say it’s a risk/benefit analysis. If I am worried about a $1000 washer failing that might last 5 years then I can save $200/year and be fine. But if I’m worried about a $350,000 house being swept away in a tornado with a perhaps 1-in-100,000 chance in any given year then $500/year for specific coverage might be worthwhile. If greater coverage for hail damage on the roof is included but that makes the cost go up to $1000/year then I would probably not do that since I can save $500/year and within a few years just have the money to cover it directly. But catastrophic events, that’s where insurance tips in favor. Going to the doctor for sniffles, nope. Go to the ER after a motorcycle wreck, probably.
But if that occurrence is due to a willful human mistake then it’s their responsibility to make me whole. No exceptions, no limits. It’s none of anyone’s business if I’m frugal or a spendthrift. If the person at fault has not saved the money then I except their insurance company to fix my car. If they carried no insurance then what? That’s supposed to be civil and maybe even criminal offense. I have been harmed, at least my property has been. Someone who steal my TV isn’t told “Well, the owner *should* have only gotten a 27″ so you’re only on the hook for $200 instead of the $1000 for a 50″ one.”
Of what if they hit you on your bike? The medical bills could be very expensive compared to hitting someone in a car even in relatively minor wrecks. Wouldn’t you expected the at-fault driver to deal with your injuries? Would it be right if you are told “Well, it’s your fault for riding a bike when everyone knows a car is safer.”
So if the government is to exist (leaving aside the question of it’s very legitimacy) then the rule should be (1) be financially responsible or (2) carrying insurance that will make the other party whole regardless of cost or (3) you pay the legal consequence. Yes, debtor’s prison needs to be the final alternative.
To restate it. I might carry insurance against major car wrecks to protect myself and that’s the personal choice. That’s like carrying homeowner’s insurance on your own house. In the case of a car insurance you’re paying to have the car fixed but also to have the resources of an insurance company, specifically their lawyers who can hold the person at fault responsible. Remember the assumption here is you are the victim who’s property and physical situation was broken.
Liability insurance should be optional, your choice if you want a financial instrument that pays someone else for your mistakes. This is done very commonly in business. Contractors carry a bond in case they break something, lawyers/doctors/engineers carrying malpractice insurance. You try to do a good job and make things right if you screw up but sometimes you make a serious error that there’s no way you can personally fix. Imagine the architect of a skyscraper where it’s found 5 years after finishing that their foundational was insufficient. It’s their fault but how can the developer and all the tenants get made whole if repairs are tens of millions or the building is condemned?
So it may behoove you to carry a large liability car insurance policy to protect you, say if you cause a 15 car pile-up due to poor operations in fog or on ice. Whatever, the specific example isn’t important. If you hit someone or something where the cost to cover is exceptionally large and just writing a check isn’t feasible. But ultimately it’s your choice. If you are financially sound and willing to just pay out of pocket that’s a fine option.
What if you buy two large towers and take a big insurance policy out on them against ‘terrorist attacks” and low and behold a few short months later, you do not show up for work and get to collect. plus your jew buddy Nutlick had to drop the kids off for school so he was not at work either but all his fellow employees were
. I pray there is a higher power so these cunts can get their just deserts.
P.s. AG stop trolling here.
I will be very polite – you first
Eric, your proposal sounds logical from the utilitarian perspective but isn’t it communist, envious in its spirit?
You will essentially be punishing people for their financial success because it’s not their fault that the government screws up everything around automobiles, roads and insurance – allowing incompetent and reckless drivers on the “public” roads, cartelizing the insurance market, etc., etc., etc.
Hi AG,
I don’t see Communism in it. I am not punishing the guy who chooses to buy a $50,000 vehicle by not paying more for liability insurance to “cover” harms to his vehicle that I have not caused. He, on the other hand, is effectively punishing me – via compulsory insurance, which forces me to help “cover” his expenses.
If he is worried about such, the burden is fairly his to pay. Fundamentally, I oppose mandatory insurance as such. I favor holding people responsible for the harms they cause – but if they do not cause them, then leave them alone. Some will argue the risk that they might cause harm is sufficient to justify forcing them to by the liability coverage. I disagree. More finely, I say that if this is legitimate then it is also legitimate to force dog owners and gun owners to also buy liability coverage. Indeed, why not large men? They might lose control of their temper and punch someone’s face in. Right?
Freedom cannot exist without acceptance of risk – and people’s right to assume it (and the corollary, to be held fully accountable).
Maybe I misunderstood your plan as it was described in the article.
I have another question, though. You say you oppose mandatory insurance. Stephan Molyneux – a famous libertarian theorist – argues that a libertarian society is a society held together by various insurance contracts, mostly of personal liability protection. He laid out the vision whereby you will be essentially cancelled out of society unless you have liability insurance. I wonder you ever heard or read his lectures and if yes, what’s your take on this.
Morning, AG –
I vehemently disagree with Molyneux on this point. His position implies coercion. It is ridiculous to believe such a scheme could work without it. Many people would prefer not to be forced to buy insurance. How would those who think everyone ought to buy it compel them to buy it? Shunning? How? On the public right of way? By restricting the right to travel? Also, the underlying premise is utterly non-libertarian in that it is premised on the idea of hypothetical harms not actually caused justifying actual harms imposed as a general thing. The libertarian concept is if you – you, the individual – cause harm then you (and only you) are responsible. Not others who did not cause the harm – because some worry they might cause it.
Look at the Kia Boyz who boost cars, drive them around, run into innocents, wreck their cars and on occasion, even kill them.
When these subhumans steal your car and wreak havoc, your insurance only pays for YOUR stolen car. They won’t pay for the damage they cause to others, since the thieves don’t have permission to use your car in the first place.
Then the victims have to call their homeowners insurance to pay for the Kia Sephia size hole in the wall.
Or heaven help the poor minimum wage slob who gets in the middle of a police car chase and gets their beater – with no collision coverage – wrecked.
Now they have to take the bus or walk to their shitty job.
Then the “Department of Wrist Slaps” puts these creatures right back on the streets within a few hours to cause more chaos the next day.
Perhaps your car is destroyed, or there’s a Sorrento in your living room, or even worse – you’re dead.
And then you STILL get a bigger bill from the insurance company.
All because government hates you and has zero obligation to protect people or property.
You must live in WA, as do I. Modern life in this nightmare of a state is a close variation of “ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs “.
You’re a responsible adult with a full time job = you’re a marked man for exploit. Pay taxes, insure the hell out of everything so you don’t lose your stuff, savings, or house to some lawsuit happy lowlife. Oh and when you’re harmed? Ha! “Restorative Justice” means the lowlife walks and you’re hung out to dry.
Right to Travel Freely- This is the actual ‘law’ and your actual Right.
Good luck asserting that right. You have become something else in the eyes of the ‘law’ and that is how you gave up your Natural Rights, including the right to travel freely on all the roads in this country. Your natural ‘rights’ have been superseded under the ‘color of law’ statutes they secretly imposed on you. These ‘rights’ under natural law and once protected by the Common Law have been ‘exchanged’ for ‘Civil Rights’ Administered under ‘Public Policy’. It was done by your ‘Implied Consent’. WHAT?
In (((their))) minds it is all ‘legal’ and accepted by you UNLESS you formally reject it by knowing AND asserting your actual Rights. This is not easily done and can result in a great deal of hardship. It’s not something you would normally want to do in the case of a traffic ticket. These creatures make up some ‘law’ then publish it in the Federal Register or Revised Statutes and if not challenged it becomes ‘law’. If you hire an ‘attorney’ you have already lost. It must be done by yourself as a BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT. http://billsropesupply.com/belligerent-claimant.pdf
“I HEREBY RESERVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM UNDER ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT I HAVE NOT ENTERED KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND VOLUNTARILY. FURTHER, I REFUSE THE LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF ANY COMPELLED BENEFIT OR UNREVEALED CONTRACT OR COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT.”
Of course, there is a lot more to this that you need to know before you cross the bar and board their pirate ship. It might cost you more than 10-20 years of insurance payments attempting to defend your rights in a completely corrupt system of ‘courts’ so what would you actually win? What if they just lie some more and completely fuck you over? It’s a tough call either way so just keep paying…
The insurance fraud scammers have made billions off (((their))) scam and can easily afford to hire armies of attorners to break you. The best case would be brought by someone who knows the real law and is financially indigent and files an affidavit of indigency, whereby it could be granted that ALL legal fees and filing fees are paid by the State, including all appeals, and have nothing to lose. Just some thoughts for now.
NOTE- For the past 3 days I have been unable to access my own website on ANY browser except Edge since they just changed something, and AI bots are crawling all over my site.
“Right to Travel Freely- This is the actual ‘law’ and your actual Right” — there is no such right, regardless of who (((they))) are.
The right to travel “exists,” and has a very long tradition, and has been “acknowledged” as a common law quasi-constitutional right since before the constitution itself actually existed. However. The last SCROTUS case on this, that I remember, involved the TSA, and the conclusion was that the so-called right to travel did not necessarily apply to air travel.
You have no tights. Just a list of temporary privileges that gets shorter every day.
The only right that does not contradict the libertarian principles (the NAP) is the right not to be aggressed upon – it is the only right that is logically universal and not self-contradictory. Any external claim – such a right to travel outside of your property – will violate the above-mentioned universal right unless you travel in a never homesteaded land, sea or space.
Either you travel across somebody’s property and thus require owner’s consent, or on a “public road”, which requires somebody to provide that road. This would be akin to claiming that “health care” or “education” is a right, which we all agree it is not because it requires somebody else to provide it for you, involuntarily.
You can argue you have the right thru some federal or state “owned” unbuilt/undeveloped desert out in the West since nobody has to provide anything there, but this is really a provisional permission not a right. The government can fence off any part of that land and prohibit access, at will. “You have no rights. Just a list of temporary privileges that gets shorter every day” – as you said it.
Since there is very little unclaimed land left the right to travel is essentially null. Except perhaps in Antarctic, or on a yacht across the oceans with endless provisions.
Maybe we need to buy insurance to insure us against other insurance companies such as Allstate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCgzSuwSbqs
Good afternoon Eric,
I’m just wondering. Is there a reason you blew the legally mandated stop sign at minute 5:00?
We can have a short, inconsequential dialogue about this if you want. When I was driving in Missouri, cerca 1981, I did less than that. The Mo smokey saw me visually from 1.5 mile range, cost me 1 months wages. I was destitute at the time.
USA USA USA
Thank you.
Hi Pancho,
You ask: “I’m just wondering. Is there a reason you blew the legally mandated stop sign at minute 5:00?”
Yes, because there was no intelligent reason to stop (completely) when there is no need to. It was easy to see there was no cross-traffic coming from either direction and so (again) no reason to stop – other than mindless obedience to signage or because there’s an AGW watching!
I slow, look and proceed without coming to a complete stop all the time. As in every day. Stopping when you van clearly see there’s no reason to wastes time and gas, increases wear and tear. I also make illegal rights-ion-red and “run” red lights when they don’t change in reasonable time and it’s safe (because clear) to do it.
I wish people would not just obey – just because the sign says so. It’s un-American.
Here,here Eric I have been doing the same thing everyday for 45 years . Only one ticket running a red light about 20 years ago. which involved an entrapment spotter.
Solution:
Separate insurance in to two parts…one for the driver who can only drive one car at a time…the second for physical damage by a vehicle to property or others.
The present system of insuring each vehicle separately is a real money-maker for insurance companies.
You can’t insure a driver, because the driver has agency (i.e. a high degree of ability to control the outcome).
This is the exact same reason why you can’t take out an insurance policy against your own criminal actions (which is what the “legally mandated concealed carry insurance” boils down to…). You can only insure against the odds that someone else randomly does something to you.
Could you imagine if we were forced to buy insurance as a condition of remaining unvaxxed during COVID jab mania? Heck, there were people (largely Democrat voters and authoritarian wannabes) who advocated all sorts of severe punishments for those who refused to comply with nonsensical COVID diktats and be guinea pigs for Big Pharma, such as being fired from their jobs or indefinite confinement.
As for insurance, I’ve also heard stories of politicians wishing to force people who own guns to buy insurance despite the fact there’s a 2nd Amendment. Could you imagine if there were also efforts to force people to buy insurance to exercise free speech rights given there’s also an assault on free speech as well as efforts to police so-called “Hate speech”.
Good grief do not give them any ideas, John. I read an article about forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance. Sounds like a de facto gun registration list to me. I think it was out of New York. Yeah..they can all go to hades and I will gladly give them a map and direction so they don’t get lost.
Shadow,
How do we know sociopaths wouldn’t have come up with such demented ideas anyway? Just look at the way they tried to shove digital vaccine passports down our throats during COVID jab mania, marketed as “Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety” and “Protecting public health from Anti-vaxxers”. This push for digital ID and CBDCs will likely get similar marketing.
It’s on the way here in WA, just a matter of time till this gets implemented:
https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article284838931.html
So what you’re saying is that all insurance should essentially be “uninsured motorist” coverage. I insure myself against any and all damages caused by others. Sound idea, but as you know most people wouldn’t buy any insurance, and then the insurance companies would lose profits, so they will lobby the government and buy off politicians to make sure that never happens.
Like all “mafias” (except for the actual Sicilian mob, that is) the insurance “mafia” is dependent upon the government backing it up.
On a side note, Eric (as I did not know where to post this link), this doozy showed up: Proposed “Front Brake Lights” to help avoid accidents. More saaaafety crap that some of us do not want. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/front-brake-lights-could-significantly-reduce-the-number-of-road-accidents-study-suggests/ar-AA1G91uM?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=5a3a39d83bb84f1fc66069d2d7b2d9f2&ei=24
Just wait until we’re forced to pay for “peaceful protest” coverage.
Nah, they would rather just say war, riots, or civil commotion whether declared or undeclared are not covered…and still charge more for the above reasons