by Eric Peters
How close are we to the point at which people decide to just throw the demand-for-money letters they get from the car insurance mafia in the trash? I think we’re pretty close.
I know I am close.
The extortion I am told I must pay (hence extortion) to the car insurance mafia for to “cover” damage I haven’t caused has more than doubled over just the past three years. Since I have more than one vehicle (including several motorcycles) the total sum is not small. Concurrently, the cost of necessities (and “coverage” is hardly that) has also increased by at least 20-30 percent. My income has not increased commensurately, which means it is beginning to more than just pinch. At some point, it will pinch enough that one (necessities, such as food and paying the power bill) or the other (non-necessities, such as “coverage”) will have to go.
I do not think I am the only one who is weighing which will have to go.
I have always despised being forced to pay for anything I do not wish to buy. It is even more despicable when the forcing is done by the government for the benefit of for-profit, so-called “private” businesses.
Car insurance businesses are, of course, nothing of the sort. They are rent-seeking, mafia-like operations that rely on threats to coerce people into forking over. The threat being that they’ll tattle – to the government – that you didn’t buy what they’re selling. The government will then punish you with fines even more extortionate than the extortion meted out by the insurance mafia; also your “privilege” to drive on the supposedly public roads will be revoked. They are actually the government’s roads – even though it is not the government that paid for them. You and everyone else who pays motor fuels taxes (and other taxes) paid for them. Nevertheless, the government controls them and that is (effectively) the same thing as owning them.
The mafia-like coercion is why the cost of insurance is so outrageously high – and will go higher still. Does it require explaining why? If the government required everyone to buy coffee, what do you suppose a cup of coffee would cost? it works the same when the government says you will buy “x” – whatever “x” is. Health insurance is another obvious example. People were told – and some were dumb enough to buy it – that by forcing everyone to buy that “coverage,” the cost would go down rather than up.
Well, has it?
What incentive does a company that knows you have to buy what it is selling have to sell you a good deal? There is only one thing that serves to keep prices down and that is being able to say no to whatever they’re trying to sell. Ever been to a yard sale? The sign says $50 for that old mower. You offer the guy $25. He can take it – or you can leave it. Odds are good he’ll take the $25 and you’ll have gotten yourself a good deal on an old mower. This is basic economic interplay; the essence of what in the Before Time was known as the free market. As in, people were free to offer a product or service for what they thought it was worth and people were free to decide whether they thought the price was worth it. Imagine that.
Can’t have that.
Forcing people to buy insurance – which was once a thing people were free to buy and that’s why it was affordable, once – became a thing beginning in the ’80s, which is right around the time everything began to seriously sour in this country. The forcing was based on the concept of presuming a harm will arise and using that as a justification to (ostensibly) prevent the harm from arising. The act of driving a car entails the possibility of causing harm to others; for that reason, everyone who drives must buy insurance to “cover” these harms, the argument went – even if the harms never actually happen. The secondary claim was that by requiring people to buy insurance as a condition of being allowed to drive on the government’s roads, there would be much less harm arising from people who actually did cause it not being able to pay for it.
This some interesting questions.
Is it right – morally – to make someone pay when he hasn’t caused harm? It seems on the face of it to be a pretty immoral idea. Not just as such but also because of the precedent it sets. If it is morally ok to make someone buy car insurance because he might cause harm then logically, it follows it is morally ok to make anyone who owns a gun buy insurance, on the same basis. It’s not even a stretch to say the same about anything that might cause harm to others, such as owning a large breed dog or having teenagers. The point here is that once the precedent is set, what is to keep it from being applied more generally? I mean, beyond whatever the current Overton Window says is acceptable, right now.
What about tomorrow?
It’s a shame more people don’t think about precedents – and principles.
As far as the secondary claim – that the requirement to buy insurance will reduce the harm caused by those who cause harm but cannot or will not pay for it – that’s been obviated by “no fault” laws that make fault an irrelevance. It is of a piece with wearing a mask – if it works. What does it matter whether someone else ears one? In addition, must-buy-insurance laws are like no-guns-allowed laws in that both are meaningless to the kinds of people who cause harm and don’t care what “the law” says.
Here is a question that’s rarely asked – as The Chimp says – but maybe ought to be answered: Why should it be a punishable offense to refuse to hand over money to a for-profit mafia? Is it not offensive to be coerced into handing over money to a for-profit mafia? Is the worry that you might cause harm something that legitimately (morally) imposes an obligation on you to hand over money? Naturally, there are people who insist it does. Such people bear a great responsibility for fucking up this country. They are the same people who support the Flocking of this country.
Each of us as individuals are responsible for what we do. Nor for what others worry we might do.
I tire of being extorted by for profit mafias that grow fat like ticks on the blood they suck from ordinary people like me who only ask to be left alone (and that includes leaving our wallets alone) so long as we haven’t harmed anyone. It’s a principle that deserves to be re-asserted.
A rebooted precedent that needs to be set.
But – some will say – you can’t drive without coverage! They’ll get you! Can they get all of us? How about a lot of us? Imagine if enough of us had outright refused to wear a mask or play any variation of Sickness Kabuki. It would have been damned hard for them to keep the Sickness Kabuki going.
It would be damned hard for them to do much about it if enough of us just threw the insurance mafia’s extortion notes in the trash, too.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply