Quote:

---

I only agree with this if it is nature which causes the accident. The drivers involved in the accident would not be liable then.

---

Quote:

---

Not if one is required by law to purchase insurance after they are a liability. My point which I have been trying to stress.

---

Quote:

---

I personally avoid dealing with 95% of the people in the outside world on a friend personal level, I would be lucky to name 5 people who I truly trust. Useless it is a very dangerous crime that may endanger many innocent civilians, I avoid most people like the fucking plague.

---

Quote:

---

Your choice be free or be a slave, there is no middle road on this opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I only agree with this if it is nature which causes the accident. The drivers involved in the accident would not be liable then.

---

Even if they aren't liable, there is still the expense of the injured people and damaged property. Mandatory insurance covers that.

Quote:

---

Not if one is required by law to purchase insurance after they are a liability. My point which I have been trying to stress.

---

Then we have 200 million accidents to absorb. Everyone gets their into first accident without insurance under that system. Then once a "liability" they have to carry it. That also penalizes them for accidents that aren't their fault b/c fewer insureds means higher premiums to cover the exact same number of accidents and if it wasn't your fault, too bad you are still a liability now.

---

Quote:

---

The police are planning a little spring break bash for him. They're going to bust him after the drug run to Cali he's got planned for next month so they can really fuck him on the charges. I might have let a little info on that slip out during dinner the other night with one of my boys in blue. I'm kind of evil like that.

---

Hell yea, that's a GREAT plan!

Quote:

---

Isn't it better than being a liability by default?

---

Quote:

---

Wouldn't you agree that it's quite ironic and funny that court settlements from auto accidents have since vanished?

---

Quote:

---

We have all been made inherently "guilty" by default to pay settlements for an accident we have not been in, or have not yet been involved in if we are even to be involved in an accident in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

Couldn't it be that this law is put into effect due to the government's irresponsibility to its people to accommodate the appropriate amount of judicial facilities and personnel?

---

Quote:

---

I don't see it as liability by default. A state system that taxed everyone including non-drivers would be liability by default. I see it as defraying the expense across all participants in an activity.

---

Quote:

---

Since when? There is still tons of litigation and entire practices devoted to driving and liability insurance. Arbitration and settlement are the biggest tools of that sector.

---

I went a little overboard in emphasis. From my observations most "courtroom" battle is done between insurance companies, excluding the individual. It seems to make individuals less acountable for their actions, when handing over the acountability to others to pay out of pocket with rate increases.

Quote:

---

Not all, only participants in the activity, namely drivers. It is a form of strict liability, just like worker's comp insurance, product manufactuing, or wild animal handlers. To engage in the activity, you must be prepared to cover the expenses of injury. Most states have an opt out to carrying insurance by sufficient showing of alternate expense coverage means, such as a depository account or trust for driver liability.

---

Quote:

---

That is just another way of externalizing the cost to people who aren't involved in the activity. We could also take a share of the income tax and make a federal driver liability plan to match worker's comp and have the gov't insure everyone. There are lots of options, this particular one simply assigns it to the participants in the activity.

---

The soultion would be to take participants out of the activity. A solution which doesn't appear to be in developement for another century.

*sigh*

Is there a S.I.G. for this project?


How did it get here from the origional topic? *laughs*

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you don't know the difference between having auto insurance and
drugs, I sure hope you aren't driving.

Your arguement is absurd.

---

I never stated that I was without insurance.
But, I have questioned what the reasons for both of these laws.

There is a big difference. Drug enforcement restricts the possession of such, liability laws require the possession such.
Being required by law to pay for liability insurance when one is not proven liable/irresponsible the law is unnecessary. Being forced by law to buy the "product" of a business makes one think of the term "free enterprise". Prepaying the penalties of ones own actions which have not occurred and will not occur is absurd.

One harms nothing but business profits(other’s gains) by not purchasing insurance.

Soon we will be required to purchase psychological damage and racial/discriminative slur liability insurance incase we hurt somebody's feelings.

---

Quote:

---

If one follows the laws, the "gray area" is gone.

Again, your arguements are more than teetering on the edge of absurd.

---

Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If one follows the laws, the "gray area" is gone.

Again, your arguements are more than teetering on the edge of absurd.

---

Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.

---

Quote:

---

Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.

---