Premiums would skyrocket as the drivers of lowest skill kept dropping out.
- well, see if the bad (not poor then, bad) drivers stopped buying insurance, they would be on the financial hook for every accident they cause personally and without insurance it would ruin them fairly quickly.
As to insurance premiums going up, if they did because the bad drivers dropped their insurance, then some of the good drivers also would drop their insurance, this would simply signal to the insurance companies that the prices are too high, they would lower them.
What would actually happen more likely (probably beyond you) is that it's not that the premiums would go up, it's that the pay outs would be limited to lower amounts and deductibles would go higher. But there is nothing wrong with that, if there was more efficiency found somewhere there, there would be new insurance companies appearing with lower premiums.
Again, you are coming up with various scenarios that are simply taken care of by the market, and you are arguing for giving more power to the government, to create MORAL HAZARD for BAD DRIVERS TO BE ON THE ROADS.
Do you not understand what I am saying? Government creates moral hazard with all these subsidies. Why are there bad drivers on the roads? So many people are forced to buy insurance that they bad drivers can continue driving, and AFAIC I would rather see FEWER DRIVERS on the road because they couldn't either afford insurance nor could they afford to drive without it, so they would take TRANSIT, there would be a new healthy market appearing for private transit, there would be more taxis at work, more buses, whatever.
You see, you have this hammer (government) you want to use on everything, you see everything as a nail to hit with it.
Private jails and courts have ALWAYS been used by the powerful to indenture everyone else.
- only as far as they are enjoying help of government, because this simply means absence of competition and subsidy by the government.
And never mind the past, how about the current? The present? What is happening in USA with so called 'private prisons', that in reality are funded by the government stealing money from everybody? What about all the drug laws and all other laws that criminalize normal human behavior?
There was no time or place on this planet until NOW that there were so many people incarcerated in one so called 'democratic' country, and it's done with government passing laws that turn normal people into criminals, government subsidizing the private jails that only exist because of gov't subsidies and gov't laws that provide the jails with nearly infinite prison population.
Obviously you are not reading my comments, you are not thinking about the present, you are not seeing that what you are supposedly against is here, right now, and it's not about to become better.
All of those things - the 3 strikes laws, etc., all of this is only possible because the government is massively destroying individual freedoms (and from former comments of yours, I know that you are not a proponent of individual freedoms, you are some form of a socialist). Yet you are complaining about the private system that never put as many people into prisons as your government is doing today.
As to BP - they were given a 75 million USD limitation of liability. Just because the gov't backed down and BP paid more than that, doesn't change the fact that the government create the moral hazard.
Billions of dollars were taken from BP because of the public outcry, I wonder how much of that will be given back to BP somehow in various government deals, I didn't look into that yet, I should.
It's funny when you have this in the same comment:
I hope in another 40 years, you might begin to see how reality works.
and this:
Claims do not harm insurance companies
This is hilarious, what can I say, satire.
As to this, again, you completely misunderstand how the companies make the most money
insurance money would make far more money by charging higher premiums and letting the criminals continue to cause havoc
Sam Walton didn't become one of the richest people by selling at higher prices to fewer people, he became one of the richest people by selling at lower prices to more people.
If the insurance cannot collect from said uninsured driver the premiums go up. This means less people get insurance and on and on. Eventually no one will bother with it.
- this wasn't a problem at all before the mandate for insurance. There are always uninsured individuals, mandate or not, and there always will be, there is about a 15% chunk of population that won't be insured whatever the requirement is.
Now, why wouldn't insurance be able to collect from uninsured driver? He has property, he has a car, he has something, a lean can be placed against it, there are all sorts of ways to recoup some of the costs at least. But you see, you think you are driven by practicality, yet in practice what we do know is that insurance costs have not come down since the government mandates started, yet all costs used to go down before government intervention into the economy, so while you may not be driven by ideology, you are also not driven by practicality. From what I observe in people who argue this way, you are driven by a false sense of 'equality', some form of 'social justice' or some other nonsense like that (which I obviously not just do not subscribe to, I think it is the most vile idea that comes out of the mob in pursuit of punishment of people that they perceive as 'outsiders', those outside of their current social norms).
Under you brilliant idea, what happens when you cause $100K in damages, can't afford that, and have no insurance
- it's not "my brilliant idea", it is the purpose of insurance, to cover your costs that you may incur above the deductible.
If you don't have insurance and you are sued, then if you lose you are going to be financially responsible, it doesn't matter that you don't have insurance, you have to pay.
- you ever stop for a second, and think about a possibility that it is in fact you, who is ignorant and doesn't understand the situation? I don't believe you do.
A pedestrian should have his own life insurance, his own medical insurance, critical illness actually, that's the point of insurance - to insure against costs that you may run up in the course of your life due to circumstances that you have no or little control over.
Fire insurance, flood insurance, critical illness (or health insurance), etc.etc., none of this is to help somebody else, it's to make sure that you are not placed in a financially untenable situation.
A pedestrian being hit by a car has a possible lawsuit against the driver, and that's what the driver's insurance may cover if it goes above his deductible. If the pedestrian wins the lawsuit, then the driver is lucky to have insurance, because that's the point, he won't be paying for the damage, it's his insurance that he bought to insure himself against such eventualities.
If neither the pedestrian nor the driver have any insurance, this doesn't mean that the driver is off the hook! It only means that he may be sued and will have to face financial consequences of paying the pedestrian for a long time.
You are completely wrong. You (not an insurance company) are responsible for harm you cause to others. Period
- you are absolutely wrong on this, it's just not the case, not even under the current system.
Who is paying for the criminal investigation under the current system? Is it the person committing the act? NO! Absolutely not! The system steal money from everybody to cover these investigations, incarceration, etc.
You are only responsible if you are proven to be responsible in the court, so there is nothing to say "period" about there, see? You can't make such statements, they have nothing to do with reality.
You are paying for insurance so that if something happens to you, that you are covered against, where the costs go above the deductible, you don't have to pay above the deductible.
What do you think happens when you get into an accident, because of somebody who has no insurance? You are covered by your insurance.
You are covered by your insurance, that's what you are paying for. Which part of it is so hard to understand?
You are paying for your food to feed yourself, not somebody else.
You are paying for your clothing, so that you can wear it, not somebody else.
You are paying for your house insurance so that if you get robbed or there is a fire or a flood or whatever damage, so you can recover your losses, it's not for somebody else.
You are supposed to be (in a sane society) paying for your health insurance so that if you get a difficult disease that is expensive, you can the put a claim above your deductible, it's not for other people, it's for you.
There is one type of insurance that is somewhat different, but that depends on who is paying for the premiums - life insurance.
If you want to know that for example your children have money if you die, you are going to buy life insurance, but actually it makes much more sense for your kids to pay for your life insurance, it's just that while they don't have jobs, they can't pay for it. That's the one case where it's not you, who benefits, it's your kids (or your spouse or whoever you choose as the beneficiary), but again, you are doing it probably for yourself, because if you want to ensure your kids financial future, you are not doing it for the society in general, it's your personal preference.
yeah, there is nothing wrong with debtors prisons. If you owe me money, I want it, and I want to get it out of you, and it shouldn't be up to government, it's a private matter.
As to violent criminals - absolutely they should have insurance collecting from them, but that's not the point.
The violent criminal should be prosecuted because the victim has insurance (unless the victim wants to pay out of pocket) and the court system needs to be paid, same with the prison system, it's not free.
If somebody beats you, whatever, you should be able to seek retribution via the court system, with insurance, yes, your insurance. It's the same principle that you are asking for, you want government to be the insurer, you want other people to pay for you, I am saying that's the wrong approach, I am saying that if you want insurance, it should be private.
As to rape kits, etc., yeah, it's up to the insurance company or your own money if you want.
Now, an insurance company may be very much interested in incarcerating a person who is a violent offender, that's because the violent offenders WILL COST INSURANCE MORE MONEY IN CLAIMS.
Thus it makes sense for the insurance company to minimize its costs by working hard against that offender in court and by paying for his incarceration if nobody else is picking up the tab, and if he has his own insurance, then his insurance is there to cover his costs. The insurance company of the victim may seek their costs to be covered by the insurance company of the offender (if he has it), sure, there is nothing wrong with it.
As to "one day you'll grow up", I am not expecting to change my opinion on any of this even if I live another 40 years, why would I?
Those are the only incentives, there are no other incentives, everything that government is doing with mandates goes completely above and beyond what the individual economic imperative is.
You should care about covering yourself, that should be your goal.
As to 'poor drivers hitting rich drivers' more if they are not forced to buy insurance - in a free market the insurance costs were always going down, not up. Your question doesn't encompass the reason for why there are poorer drivers - it's the government that prevents poorer people becoming wealthier.
Otherwise how do you think it is possible, that people that you call 'poor' CAN OWN AND DRIVE CARS? That's because the market works to make cars affordable, because that's the best way to make the most profits (Sam Walton didn't become one of the richest people on the planet by selling to the rich).
Also as I said earlier, it is up to the insurance company to attempt and recoup the costs from the other side if it's possible, but the insurance is there to cover YOU.
You bought it, you didn't buy it to cover other people, you bought it, you are paying for it, just like with any other product - to cover yourself.
If you truly believe that this is "an interesting idea", then I am flabbergasted, because it never occurred to me that somebody can really look at it and think that this is something extraordinary - buying things that you buy, so that they are there for you to use. It's amazing to me, actually, what country are you from?
Liability only means that if somebody sues you, your insurance still covers those costs. The other person needs to have his own insurance to cover his costs.
Whether the other person has insurance or not is actually irrelevant for him suing you (anybody can sue you, insurance or not), and that's what liability actually means, that you are covered in case of a lawsuit like that and maybe you win or lose that lawsuit, the costs are covered by your insurance.
It is your personal responsibility to cover yourself with enough insurance so that if something happens to you, you do not have to worry about paying for your bills and such.
That's why having government mandating this is complete fraud and totally above and beyond what should be allowed to government.
(same person, different account, the other one is limited now, I can only post there in 24 hours it says).
Liability only means that YOU are covered by YOUR insurance in case YOUR costs of protecting yourself against a lawsuit by the other side goes above your deductible limit.
This is a huge misunderstanding that is created by the government propaganda machine on purpose, you are paying insurance so that your costs are covered, and your costs may be costs of a lawsuit against you.
The other side, the other person, his insurance is there so that he has his costs covered above his deductible.
The point to buy insurance is not to cover anybody else but yourself, the government wants you to be totally in the dark, totally misunderstanding the point of insurance as well as completely misunderstanding how money works, how economy works, everything is set up so that you can be robbed.
Remember, they need you to be only intelligent enough to participate in the economy by working somewhere, but not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to understand that you are getting robbed by the system.
This is a private property issue, nothing to do with government. If you are causing pollution to OTHER people's property and possibly even causing harm to other people's health, not yours, that's your problem, other people. Then it is up to those other people to sue you, that's all. There are property rights and there is criminal code.
Now, as I said, I wouldn't have government put people to jail, it should be completely private. The courts would be private, the private prisons, the private police force. Would there be courts, that would find against the property owner? Maybe, it's possible. However it is not up to the best interests of the court not to protect private property, that type of court wouldn't last for too long.
People have private property, most people do, and they want private property ownership to be upheld. Would a court survive the competition for too long in such a system?
Since in most cases it would be the private INSURANCE that would pay for such cases, it would be beneficial to the insurance company to have the court that upholds private property rights in almost all cases. Certainly it makes no sense to not uphold private property rights, after all, even insurance companies need private property laws to work.
If you refuse to go to court and such, again, it would be up to the insurance companies to deal with you, because your behavior may cause untold DAMAGE TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES because your behavior may eventually lead to too many payouts, as insurance would have to cover all the people's problems that you may cause.
Yes, private security force may be hired and you may end up in prison and your property may end up being leaned and seized to pay for the decontamination and other costs.
AFAIC there is nothing that the government does today that would be anywhere near as efficient as a system would be based on private courts, private insurance and private security. What did government do with BP spill? What, the 75 Million USD per incident liability limit? How did that help anybody?
Your comments are... well, I wrote what insurance is for here (sorry, can't post under my first account, have to use this one, that's because people don't like what I have to say though they for some reason like to participate in the discussions).
Insurance is not there for the OTHER side to be covered, it's for YOU to be covered.
There is no reason at all to allow government to dictate to the people that they must buy insurance! Your insurance is there so that YOU are covered, not the other side.
It's up to the insurance company to try and recoup the costs if it's possible from the other side, but as far as you are concerned, all you need is your insurance to kick in when your costs go over your deductible limit, you shouldn't care that the other side doesn't have insurance and government certainly shouldn't be mandating any of this.
I suggest to people that they should buy insurance if they don't have enough savings that they are comfortable with to cover their own costs, but I will never force people to buy insurance, but that's where the threat of government violence comes in handy for you and people that share your totalitarian ideology.
(my other account is now waiting for 24 hours to pass before more comments can be made, and you probably want me to answer, yes?)
Private courts? Welcome to slavery. You will always be guilty and you will always be working to pay that insurance that now costs 100% of what you make.
- right, because without government meddling all of a sudden there will be no competition in insurance. Because without government criminalising behaviour, somehow more people will end up in prisons? Ha, what an interesting notion. People's behaviour that is criminalised by the government, lands them into prisons, allows the public police force to confiscate their property without any trial, without any hearing, nothing.
You are already guilty of everything in the eyes of the government, you have to prove that you are not.
And as to debtor prisons - there is nothing wrong with it.
As to violent criminals and insurance - in a free market system plenty of people will have liability insurance, because without gov't meddling, there will be plenty of space for private lawsuits to deal with property and contract issues as well as criminal charges and those also have to be paid for.
If you end up hurt by somebody criminally, it's up to YOUR insurance to cover the cost of the case and put the criminal to prison and it's up to the insurance company to extract the payments from the criminal in prison. Yes, it's not simple, no, it shouldn't BE simple to put people into jail.
- to the uninformed, and even to them it should make a difference, you are a special kind of person not to understand the difference.
It's the difference between engaging in a normal market activity (borrowing and then selling with the intent to buy back and give back the loan, because you think the price will go down) and counterfeiting (not borrowing, selling something you don't have, so now you don't have to cover your short position).
It's counterfeiting, just like currency printing and fractional reserve banking. In fact in naked short silver contracts, JPMorgan has a position that is 20-50 times greater than the entire physical silver purchasing market. That's definition of counterfeiting and in case of JPMorgan and silver it's done to push the prices down. JPMorgan so far shorted 1-3 billion ounces of silver, this much silver doesn't even exist above ground.
"Selling" an asset that you do not have is not selling, it's nonsense. The only reason this continues is because of very high 'delivery taxes' (20% tax on silver delivery in London).
what do you care, AC? It's called a ban, the account gets locked because a lot of like minded individuals moderate it into shit and it cannot be used to post.
That's not a 'nice' graph, that's a hugely misleading graph.
1. GDP.
There is almost no manufacturing left in USA and has been the trend since about the seventies until now, factories have left, manufacturing is not there. GDP before 1970s actually had production in it. Where is the 'Product' part of the GDP exactly today, when GDP is 70 consumption, and most of that is of foreign made goods? GDP is mostly consumption. It's also very heavily affected by the inflation, and it's not deflated property, because in USA the inflation is way under-reported.
Real inflation in USA is 11-15%, not what the gov't is reporting. The real GDP in USA has been going down for over 2 decades, USA is in a depression for 2 decades.
2. Productivity.
USA is losing productivity, not gaining it. Yes, there are still productive farmers and some people are still productive in industries that didn't lose the capital yet. But there is no productivity in production, the capital is lost, it's gone to other countries.
Productivity is not your ability to flail your hands around faster, it's the application of the capital to the labor force that increases productivity.
Learn history, gold and silver used to be the money of USA when USA was the productive country. Same with the Roman Republic, of-course when they started inflating the value of their coins (clipping and diluting with non-precious metals), they too began the destruction of their economy.
I don't see banks as the source of the problem, they are part of the problem because they cooperate with the corrupt government, but they are not the source, the source is the government, however I do have a specific problem with JPMorgan and one particular person there - Blythe Masters.
She is pretty much somewhere near the root of the naked short defaults swaps and AFAIC, naked credit is just as much counterfeiting as the fractional reserve and the Federal reserve with its fake credit line.
JPMorgan holds a gigantic position in naked shorts against the silver market (and other markets), it's amazing that this particular activity isn't investigated, but the fact that it exists is just another side effect of fake fiat currency provided by the central banks.
Somalia that libertarian ideal, shows the common sense of libertarians who on close examination turn out to be self centred morons.
- the morons are those, who are using the example of Somalia to try and discredit libertarian ideas, while completely oblivious about Somalia, fully ignorant. Somalia is a former British colony, former Communist nation, that fought a civil war to get rid of that Communist government over 20 years ago now, to get some semblance of freedom. The idiots who talk about Somalia don't have a clue. Yes, those people want freedom, no it doesn't make them 'libertarians', it makes them desperate. A civil war ridden country that never had any freedoms at all is an example of libertarianism only in the heads of the ignorant, stupid, mis-educated dumb shits.
Though it can be added that Somalia today has some of the strongest currency in the world specifically because they are using the paper that no central bank could print for decades. They exchange for rolls of these notes, but the perceived value is stable, not falling, like currencies of some nations we know all about.
I've been a vegetarian for 18 years now, for 6 years I was a strict vegan actually. Though I didn't grow up on this diet, millions of people in the world have.
Open documentation? Pfffft. That's a lame advice. No no, what you want to do is mix it up some more, obfuscate the code, change variables to make them global and reuse them everywhere but all for different purposes. Merge large files together and brake small files into even smaller ones.
Remove any useful comments from the code, but add plenty of comments like this:
// adds 1 to i, waits until i is greater than 10 then adds 2 to a.
Now that's a comment!
Then leave the project and see the other guy come in and pull his hair out. Life is hard, make it funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Premiums would skyrocket as the drivers of lowest skill kept dropping out.
- well, see if the bad (not poor then, bad) drivers stopped buying insurance, they would be on the financial hook for every accident they cause personally and without insurance it would ruin them fairly quickly.
As to insurance premiums going up, if they did because the bad drivers dropped their insurance, then some of the good drivers also would drop their insurance, this would simply signal to the insurance companies that the prices are too high, they would lower them.
What would actually happen more likely (probably beyond you) is that it's not that the premiums would go up, it's that the pay outs would be limited to lower amounts and deductibles would go higher. But there is nothing wrong with that, if there was more efficiency found somewhere there, there would be new insurance companies appearing with lower premiums.
Again, you are coming up with various scenarios that are simply taken care of by the market, and you are arguing for giving more power to the government, to create MORAL HAZARD for BAD DRIVERS TO BE ON THE ROADS.
Do you not understand what I am saying? Government creates moral hazard with all these subsidies. Why are there bad drivers on the roads? So many people are forced to buy insurance that they bad drivers can continue driving, and AFAIC I would rather see FEWER DRIVERS on the road because they couldn't either afford insurance nor could they afford to drive without it, so they would take TRANSIT, there would be a new healthy market appearing for private transit, there would be more taxis at work, more buses, whatever.
You see, you have this hammer (government) you want to use on everything, you see everything as a nail to hit with it.
Private jails and courts have ALWAYS been used by the powerful to indenture everyone else.
- only as far as they are enjoying help of government, because this simply means absence of competition and subsidy by the government.
And never mind the past, how about the current? The present? What is happening in USA with so called 'private prisons', that in reality are funded by the government stealing money from everybody? What about all the drug laws and all other laws that criminalize normal human behavior?
There was no time or place on this planet until NOW that there were so many people incarcerated in one so called 'democratic' country, and it's done with government passing laws that turn normal people into criminals, government subsidizing the private jails that only exist because of gov't subsidies and gov't laws that provide the jails with nearly infinite prison population.
Obviously you are not reading my comments, you are not thinking about the present, you are not seeing that what you are supposedly against is here, right now, and it's not about to become better.
All of those things - the 3 strikes laws, etc., all of this is only possible because the government is massively destroying individual freedoms (and from former comments of yours, I know that you are not a proponent of individual freedoms, you are some form of a socialist). Yet you are complaining about the private system that never put as many people into prisons as your government is doing today.
As to BP - they were given a 75 million USD limitation of liability. Just because the gov't backed down and BP paid more than that, doesn't change the fact that the government create the moral hazard.
Billions of dollars were taken from BP because of the public outcry, I wonder how much of that will be given back to BP somehow in various government deals, I didn't look into that yet, I should.
It's funny when you have this in the same comment:
I hope in another 40 years, you might begin to see how reality works.
and this:
Claims do not harm insurance companies
This is hilarious, what can I say, satire.
As to this, again, you completely misunderstand how the companies make the most money
insurance money would make far more money by charging higher premiums and letting the criminals continue to cause havoc
Sam Walton didn't become one of the richest people by selling at higher prices to fewer people, he became one of the richest people by selling at lower prices to more people.
If the insurance cannot collect from said uninsured driver the premiums go up. This means less people get insurance and on and on. Eventually no one will bother with it.
- this wasn't a problem at all before the mandate for insurance. There are always uninsured individuals, mandate or not, and there always will be, there is about a 15% chunk of population that won't be insured whatever the requirement is.
Now, why wouldn't insurance be able to collect from uninsured driver? He has property, he has a car, he has something, a lean can be placed against it, there are all sorts of ways to recoup some of the costs at least. But you see, you think you are driven by practicality, yet in practice what we do know is that insurance costs have not come down since the government mandates started, yet all costs used to go down before government intervention into the economy, so while you may not be driven by ideology, you are also not driven by practicality. From what I observe in people who argue this way, you are driven by a false sense of 'equality', some form of 'social justice' or some other nonsense like that (which I obviously not just do not subscribe to, I think it is the most vile idea that comes out of the mob in pursuit of punishment of people that they perceive as 'outsiders', those outside of their current social norms).
Under you brilliant idea, what happens when you cause $100K in damages, can't afford that, and have no insurance
- it's not "my brilliant idea", it is the purpose of insurance, to cover your costs that you may incur above the deductible.
If you don't have insurance and you are sued, then if you lose you are going to be financially responsible, it doesn't matter that you don't have insurance, you have to pay.
Are you really that stupid?
- you ever stop for a second, and think about a possibility that it is in fact you, who is ignorant and doesn't understand the situation? I don't believe you do.
A pedestrian should have his own life insurance, his own medical insurance, critical illness actually, that's the point of insurance - to insure against costs that you may run up in the course of your life due to circumstances that you have no or little control over.
Fire insurance, flood insurance, critical illness (or health insurance), etc.etc., none of this is to help somebody else, it's to make sure that you are not placed in a financially untenable situation.
A pedestrian being hit by a car has a possible lawsuit against the driver, and that's what the driver's insurance may cover if it goes above his deductible. If the pedestrian wins the lawsuit, then the driver is lucky to have insurance, because that's the point, he won't be paying for the damage, it's his insurance that he bought to insure himself against such eventualities.
If neither the pedestrian nor the driver have any insurance, this doesn't mean that the driver is off the hook! It only means that he may be sued and will have to face financial consequences of paying the pedestrian for a long time.
You are completely wrong. You (not an insurance company) are responsible for harm you cause to others. Period
- you are absolutely wrong on this, it's just not the case, not even under the current system.
Who is paying for the criminal investigation under the current system? Is it the person committing the act? NO! Absolutely not! The system steal money from everybody to cover these investigations, incarceration, etc.
You are only responsible if you are proven to be responsible in the court, so there is nothing to say "period" about there, see? You can't make such statements, they have nothing to do with reality.
You are paying for insurance so that if something happens to you, that you are covered against, where the costs go above the deductible, you don't have to pay above the deductible.
What do you think happens when you get into an accident, because of somebody who has no insurance? You are covered by your insurance.
You are covered by your insurance, that's what you are paying for. Which part of it is so hard to understand?
You are paying for your food to feed yourself, not somebody else.
You are paying for your clothing, so that you can wear it, not somebody else.
You are paying for your house insurance so that if you get robbed or there is a fire or a flood or whatever damage, so you can recover your losses, it's not for somebody else.
You are supposed to be (in a sane society) paying for your health insurance so that if you get a difficult disease that is expensive, you can the put a claim above your deductible, it's not for other people, it's for you.
There is one type of insurance that is somewhat different, but that depends on who is paying for the premiums - life insurance.
If you want to know that for example your children have money if you die, you are going to buy life insurance, but actually it makes much more sense for your kids to pay for your life insurance, it's just that while they don't have jobs, they can't pay for it. That's the one case where it's not you, who benefits, it's your kids (or your spouse or whoever you choose as the beneficiary), but again, you are doing it probably for yourself, because if you want to ensure your kids financial future, you are not doing it for the society in general, it's your personal preference.
So when you say silly things like this:
you are completely wrong
- that's just ignorant.
yeah, there is nothing wrong with debtors prisons. If you owe me money, I want it, and I want to get it out of you, and it shouldn't be up to government, it's a private matter.
As to violent criminals - absolutely they should have insurance collecting from them, but that's not the point.
The violent criminal should be prosecuted because the victim has insurance (unless the victim wants to pay out of pocket) and the court system needs to be paid, same with the prison system, it's not free.
If somebody beats you, whatever, you should be able to seek retribution via the court system, with insurance, yes, your insurance. It's the same principle that you are asking for, you want government to be the insurer, you want other people to pay for you, I am saying that's the wrong approach, I am saying that if you want insurance, it should be private.
As to rape kits, etc., yeah, it's up to the insurance company or your own money if you want.
Now, an insurance company may be very much interested in incarcerating a person who is a violent offender, that's because the violent offenders WILL COST INSURANCE MORE MONEY IN CLAIMS.
Thus it makes sense for the insurance company to minimize its costs by working hard against that offender in court and by paying for his incarceration if nobody else is picking up the tab, and if he has his own insurance, then his insurance is there to cover his costs. The insurance company of the victim may seek their costs to be covered by the insurance company of the offender (if he has it), sure, there is nothing wrong with it.
As to "one day you'll grow up", I am not expecting to change my opinion on any of this even if I live another 40 years, why would I?
It's what the point of insurance is, to cover yourself, not somebody else.
That's why people bought health insurance before there was government health insurance (I have a journal entry on this, people preferred private health insurance actually).
Those are the only incentives, there are no other incentives, everything that government is doing with mandates goes completely above and beyond what the individual economic imperative is.
You should care about covering yourself, that should be your goal.
As to 'poor drivers hitting rich drivers' more if they are not forced to buy insurance - in a free market the insurance costs were always going down, not up. Your question doesn't encompass the reason for why there are poorer drivers - it's the government that prevents poorer people becoming wealthier.
Otherwise how do you think it is possible, that people that you call 'poor' CAN OWN AND DRIVE CARS? That's because the market works to make cars affordable, because that's the best way to make the most profits (Sam Walton didn't become one of the richest people on the planet by selling to the rich).
Also as I said earlier, it is up to the insurance company to attempt and recoup the costs from the other side if it's possible, but the insurance is there to cover YOU.
You bought it, you didn't buy it to cover other people, you bought it, you are paying for it, just like with any other product - to cover yourself.
If you truly believe that this is "an interesting idea", then I am flabbergasted, because it never occurred to me that somebody can really look at it and think that this is something extraordinary - buying things that you buy, so that they are there for you to use. It's amazing to me, actually, what country are you from?
You are mistaken, just like this guy, and my reply to him is the same as it is to you. Your insurance is there to cover you, not anybody else.
Liability only means that if somebody sues you, your insurance still covers those costs. The other person needs to have his own insurance to cover his costs.
Whether the other person has insurance or not is actually irrelevant for him suing you (anybody can sue you, insurance or not), and that's what liability actually means, that you are covered in case of a lawsuit like that and maybe you win or lose that lawsuit, the costs are covered by your insurance.
It is your personal responsibility to cover yourself with enough insurance so that if something happens to you, you do not have to worry about paying for your bills and such.
That's why having government mandating this is complete fraud and totally above and beyond what should be allowed to government.
(same person, different account, the other one is limited now, I can only post there in 24 hours it says).
Liability only means that YOU are covered by YOUR insurance in case YOUR costs of protecting yourself against a lawsuit by the other side goes above your deductible limit.
This is a huge misunderstanding that is created by the government propaganda machine on purpose, you are paying insurance so that your costs are covered, and your costs may be costs of a lawsuit against you.
The other side, the other person, his insurance is there so that he has his costs covered above his deductible.
The point to buy insurance is not to cover anybody else but yourself, the government wants you to be totally in the dark, totally misunderstanding the point of insurance as well as completely misunderstanding how money works, how economy works, everything is set up so that you can be robbed.
Remember, they need you to be only intelligent enough to participate in the economy by working somewhere, but not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to understand that you are getting robbed by the system.
This is a private property issue, nothing to do with government. If you are causing pollution to OTHER people's property and possibly even causing harm to other people's health, not yours, that's your problem, other people. Then it is up to those other people to sue you, that's all. There are property rights and there is criminal code.
Now, as I said, I wouldn't have government put people to jail, it should be completely private. The courts would be private, the private prisons, the private police force. Would there be courts, that would find against the property owner? Maybe, it's possible. However it is not up to the best interests of the court not to protect private property, that type of court wouldn't last for too long.
People have private property, most people do, and they want private property ownership to be upheld. Would a court survive the competition for too long in such a system?
Since in most cases it would be the private INSURANCE that would pay for such cases, it would be beneficial to the insurance company to have the court that upholds private property rights in almost all cases. Certainly it makes no sense to not uphold private property rights, after all, even insurance companies need private property laws to work.
If you refuse to go to court and such, again, it would be up to the insurance companies to deal with you, because your behavior may cause untold DAMAGE TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES because your behavior may eventually lead to too many payouts, as insurance would have to cover all the people's problems that you may cause.
Yes, private security force may be hired and you may end up in prison and your property may end up being leaned and seized to pay for the decontamination and other costs.
AFAIC there is nothing that the government does today that would be anywhere near as efficient as a system would be based on private courts, private insurance and private security. What did government do with BP spill? What, the 75 Million USD per incident liability limit? How did that help anybody?
Your comments are ... well, I wrote what insurance is for here (sorry, can't post under my first account, have to use this one, that's because people don't like what I have to say though they for some reason like to participate in the discussions).
Insurance is not there for the OTHER side to be covered, it's for YOU to be covered.
There is no reason at all to allow government to dictate to the people that they must buy insurance! Your insurance is there so that YOU are covered, not the other side.
It's up to the insurance company to try and recoup the costs if it's possible from the other side, but as far as you are concerned, all you need is your insurance to kick in when your costs go over your deductible limit, you shouldn't care that the other side doesn't have insurance and government certainly shouldn't be mandating any of this.
I suggest to people that they should buy insurance if they don't have enough savings that they are comfortable with to cover their own costs, but I will never force people to buy insurance, but that's where the threat of government violence comes in handy for you and people that share your totalitarian ideology.
(my other account is now waiting for 24 hours to pass before more comments can be made, and you probably want me to answer, yes?)
Private courts? Welcome to slavery. You will always be guilty and you will always be working to pay that insurance that now costs 100% of what you make.
- right, because without government meddling all of a sudden there will be no competition in insurance. Because without government criminalising behaviour, somehow more people will end up in prisons? Ha, what an interesting notion. People's behaviour that is criminalised by the government, lands them into prisons, allows the public police force to confiscate their property without any trial, without any hearing, nothing.
You are already guilty of everything in the eyes of the government, you have to prove that you are not.
And as to debtor prisons - there is nothing wrong with it.
As to violent criminals and insurance - in a free market system plenty of people will have liability insurance, because without gov't meddling, there will be plenty of space for private lawsuits to deal with property and contract issues as well as criminal charges and those also have to be paid for.
If you end up hurt by somebody criminally, it's up to YOUR insurance to cover the cost of the case and put the criminal to prison and it's up to the insurance company to extract the payments from the criminal in prison. Yes, it's not simple, no, it shouldn't BE simple to put people into jail.
Makes no difference.
- to the uninformed, and even to them it should make a difference, you are a special kind of person not to understand the difference.
It's the difference between engaging in a normal market activity (borrowing and then selling with the intent to buy back and give back the loan, because you think the price will go down) and counterfeiting (not borrowing, selling something you don't have, so now you don't have to cover your short position).
It's counterfeiting, just like currency printing and fractional reserve banking. In fact in naked short silver contracts, JPMorgan has a position that is 20-50 times greater than the entire physical silver purchasing market. That's definition of counterfeiting and in case of JPMorgan and silver it's done to push the prices down. JPMorgan so far shorted 1-3 billion ounces of silver, this much silver doesn't even exist above ground.
"Selling" an asset that you do not have is not selling, it's nonsense. The only reason this continues is because of very high 'delivery taxes' (20% tax on silver delivery in London).
Karma 'terrible' or 'bad' right now, the number of posts is limited to 2-3 posts per day, unlike for an Anonymous Coward, like you.
what do you care, AC? It's called a ban, the account gets locked because a lot of like minded individuals moderate it into shit and it cannot be used to post.
That's not a 'nice' graph, that's a hugely misleading graph.
1. GDP.
There is almost no manufacturing left in USA and has been the trend since about the seventies until now, factories have left, manufacturing is not there. GDP before 1970s actually had production in it. Where is the 'Product' part of the GDP exactly today, when GDP is 70 consumption, and most of that is of foreign made goods? GDP is mostly consumption. It's also very heavily affected by the inflation, and it's not deflated property, because in USA the inflation is way under-reported.
Real inflation in USA is 11-15%, not what the gov't is reporting. The real GDP in USA has been going down for over 2 decades, USA is in a depression for 2 decades.
2. Productivity.
USA is losing productivity, not gaining it. Yes, there are still productive farmers and some people are still productive in industries that didn't lose the capital yet. But there is no productivity in production, the capital is lost, it's gone to other countries.
Productivity is not your ability to flail your hands around faster, it's the application of the capital to the labor force that increases productivity.
Learn history, gold and silver used to be the money of USA when USA was the productive country. Same with the Roman Republic, of-course when they started inflating the value of their coins (clipping and diluting with non-precious metals), they too began the destruction of their economy.
Do you have problem concentrating? ADHD?
NAKED shorts, as in - nothing was borrowed to sell.
I don't see banks as the source of the problem, they are part of the problem because they cooperate with the corrupt government, but they are not the source, the source is the government, however I do have a specific problem with JPMorgan and one particular person there - Blythe Masters.
She is pretty much somewhere near the root of the naked short defaults swaps and AFAIC, naked credit is just as much counterfeiting as the fractional reserve and the Federal reserve with its fake credit line.
JPMorgan holds a gigantic position in naked shorts against the silver market (and other markets), it's amazing that this particular activity isn't investigated, but the fact that it exists is just another side effect of fake fiat currency provided by the central banks.
Romney for example would pay less than 1% taxes under Ryan's plan
- AFAIC that's 1% too much in taxes.
Somalia that libertarian ideal, shows the common sense of libertarians who on close examination turn out to be self centred morons.
- the morons are those, who are using the example of Somalia to try and discredit libertarian ideas, while completely oblivious about Somalia, fully ignorant. Somalia is a former British colony, former Communist nation, that fought a civil war to get rid of that Communist government over 20 years ago now, to get some semblance of freedom. The idiots who talk about Somalia don't have a clue. Yes, those people want freedom, no it doesn't make them 'libertarians', it makes them desperate. A civil war ridden country that never had any freedoms at all is an example of libertarianism only in the heads of the ignorant, stupid, mis-educated dumb shits.
Though it can be added that Somalia today has some of the strongest currency in the world specifically because they are using the paper that no central bank could print for decades. They exchange for rolls of these notes, but the perceived value is stable, not falling, like currencies of some nations we know all about.
I've been a vegetarian for 18 years now, for 6 years I was a strict vegan actually. Though I didn't grow up on this diet, millions of people in the world have.
Open documentation? Pfffft. That's a lame advice. No no, what you want to do is mix it up some more, obfuscate the code, change variables to make them global and reuse them everywhere but all for different purposes. Merge large files together and brake small files into even smaller ones.
Remove any useful comments from the code, but add plenty of comments like this:
// adds 1 to i, waits until i is greater than 10 then adds 2 to a.
Now that's a comment!
Then leave the project and see the other guy come in and pull his hair out. Life is hard, make it funny.