Comments (65)

• David C

  Oh man, I can't wait to get out of California - they just switched to 'universal' health insurance. Employers must have it or pay 4% of payroll into a state fund (current private insurance at an average of 6% is doomed). IMHO, the the real issue was wal-mart. The unionized grocers who were forced to pay for health insurance simply couldn't compete anymore.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:15 AM

• _NH

  Wait until you see what the new Democrat majority has in store for us.

  They plan on passing a smoking ban.
  They tried, but withdrew, an income tax bill.
  There was a sales tax bill submitted, not sure if it's still there.
  They are going to try to force state funding of education and when they do, kindergarten will be pushed, mandatory.

  HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP!
  Please send some more conservative liberarians here! We need you.
  

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:26 AM

• John Stark

  Take it easy _NH!

  This is just par for the course in New Hampshire. Socialists are always trying to encroach on individual liberty, but they always fail. Relax.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:43 AM

• David White

  And let's not forget Vermont:

  http://www.vtcommons.org

  Published: January 10, 2007 7:30 AM

• Person

  no mandatory car insurance
  
  

  ... no mandatory paying damages when you wreck someone's car...

  Published: January 10, 2007 9:04 AM

• David White

  Person,

  Not unless the other party sues you for them in civil court, and the court mandates it. No need for a government mandate.

  Published: January 10, 2007 9:37 AM

• Larry N. Martin

  No, no, person's right. People are basically bad, and if you don't force them to have insurance, then they won't do it, and they'll not take responsibility for their actions when they have a car wreck.
  
  Which certainly explains why more people are without insurance after a mandatory law goes into effect than before.
  What part of unintended consequences of coercion do these people not understand?

  Published: January 10, 2007 11:30 AM

• Person

  Guys: I don't care if someone risks his own financial failure by not carrying insurance. That's between him and his god (or Dale Earnheart [sp] as the case may be). I do care if his inability to pay spills over onto me in terms of not being compensated for his torts. Saying people should be able to drive without being able to cover a certain level of damages is saying that people should be allowed to expose others to severe risk. I really don't understand this tendency to blend in "dumping risk onto unwilling participants" with the other freedoms.

  Published: January 10, 2007 11:40 AM

• billwald

  Whatever cause, the theory of our sin nature is the one demonstrable Christian doctrine. There is no evidence that human nature has improved, become more civilized, in the last 10,000 years. The best can be said is we kill more efficiently.

  The uncivilized drivers do not have insurance no matter what the law requires which is why uninsured motorist insurance costs almost as much as liability. It would be much more economical to drop all insurance requirements and let the civilized people buy insurance to protect themselves.

  Published: January 10, 2007 11:42 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  I really don't understand this tendency to blend in "dumping risk onto unwilling participants" with the other freedoms.

  The problem with your reasoning is this: Just about every action I take carries with it some risk, great or small, to others. How do you decide the risk threshold for mandated insurance? If someone is found to be driving without insurance, what is the punishment? After answering that question, tell me -- why not only punish people who actually cause damage that they are unable to compensate for?

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:16 PM

• Person

  Roy_W._Wright, you're trying to use a "show me the brite line" argument, and it doesn't wash. I know that everything poses a risk, and I know it's hard to discern precisely where the risk on others becomes high enough to justify requiring insurance, but that's not reason to say *nothing* must be insured for liability. There are cases where the risk is high enough so that a really sincere promise of "I'll find money worth several hundred times my current assets if I screw up, I promise!" simply won't do. What if I want to cart a nuclear weapon through a neighborhood? I mean, I really super-double promise it won't blow up, we like, were extra careful -- is that good enough?
  
  Think about it.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:30 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  I have thought about it. Hence my other two questions.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:32 PM

• Person

  No, you haven't. Hence my two questions.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:42 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  Your questions have nothing to do with whether auto insurance should be mandated. I never claimed that insurance shouldn't be required in any situation, ever, though that seems to be the conclusion you've jumped to.

  I mean, I really super-double promise it won't blow up, we like, were extra careful -- is that good enough?

  Let's suppose my answer is "no." What bearing does that have on the matter at hand? You still haven't explained why car drivers should be required to carry insurance.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:51 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  Also, I'm curious -- do you consider yourself a consequentialist? I'm not asking as some sort of insult or set-up for one; I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

  Published: January 10, 2007 12:54 PM

• Person

  Roy_W._Wright: Your questions have nothing to do with whether auto insurance should be mandated. I never claimed that insurance shouldn't be required in any situation, ever, though that seems to be the conclusion you've jumped to.
  
  That's unfortunate, because that's precisely the implication of the position you took: "why not only punish people who actually cause damage that they are unable to compensate for?"
  
  Let's suppose my answer is "no." What bearing does that have on the matter at hand?
  
  It means you don't agree people should *merely* be require to compensate for torts, but also, for at least some classes of actions, have to carry insurance, i.e., my position.
  
  Also, I'm curious -- do you consider yourself a consequentialist?
  
  I would say I use consequentialism as a "reality check" in weighing policies with extreme consequences, kind of like Stephan_Kinsella (cf. his position on immigration).

  Published: January 10, 2007 1:15 PM

• David White

  Person, to mandate anything is to mandate the state. That alone should be reason enough to avoid doing so.

  Published: January 10, 2007 1:36 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Person

  When you take your car out onto the road you are assuming a risk that it may be damaged or destroyed. The risk is entirely yours and yours alone. It is up to you to decide whether or not you want to assume this burden. Should you decide not to, then you should not take your car out onto the road. Should you decide you do, then you may then choose to obtain insurance. But the risk is yours at the outset and it is your responsibility to determine what to do about it.

  In stating this I assume that the roads you drive on are not owned by a private organisation that requires of you certain obligations (such as insurance prior to tranversing their property).

  Sione

  Published: January 10, 2007 1:39 PM

• Person

  David_White:Person, to mandate anything is to mandate the state. That alone should be reason enough to avoid doing so.
  
  Privately owned roads would require some kind of liability insurance as well.
  
  Sione_Vatu:When you take your car out onto the road you are assuming a risk that it may be damaged or destroyed. The risk is entirely yours and yours alone. It is up to you to decide whether or not you want to assume this burden. Should you decide not to, then you should not take your car out onto the road. Should you decide you do, then you may then choose to obtain insurance. But the risk is yours at the outset and it is your responsibility to determine what to do about it.
  
  No, it's not. My crashing imposes costs on *other people*. I agree I should be allowed to bear all the risk to *my* car, and to *my* body, but *I* am not *other people*, and those other people did not consent to being placed at risk of property loss without compensation.
  

  Published: January 10, 2007 1:54 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  That's unfortunate, because that's precisely the implication of the position you took: "why not only punish people who actually cause damage that they are unable to compensate for?"

  Sorry, I was referring to the specific case of drivers, where the potential damage is not on the scale of a nuclear weapon. I should have written "drivers" instead of "people."

  
  It means you don't agree people should *merely* be require to compensate for torts, but also, for at least some classes of actions, have to carry insurance, i.e., my position.

  True enough, but it doesn't mean that I place driving in those classes of actions.

  
  Person, to mandate anything is to mandate the state. That alone should be reason enough to avoid doing so.

  This is simplistic but brings up a good question: who makes sure that drivers are insured, and how do they do it?

  
  Privately owned roads would require some kind of liability insurance as well.

  Very true, and for this reason I suspect this argument is rather moot, since private road companies would almost certainly require some kind of insurance as a condition of using their property. However, there is no reason that they must have such a requirement. It is a business decision.

  Published: January 10, 2007 2:35 PM

• David White

  Person,

  The owner of a private road might or might not require its users to carry liability insurance (market considerations would be the deciding factor), but this is decidedly different from government edicts that, as history has gone out of its way to prove, know no bounds.

  This indeed was Nock's point in a previous blog about "five-percent Statism" -- i.e., you might start there, but you sure as hell won't end there.
  

  Published: January 10, 2007 2:50 PM

• Person

  Roy_W._Wright: I said: It means you don't agree people should *merely* be require to compensate for torts, but also, for at least some classes of actions, have to carry insurance, i.e., my position.
  
  To which you replied:True enough, but it doesn't mean that I place driving in those classes of actions.
  
  So your original point was in error. You were claiming that *because* the boundary (between how much risk would violate the rights of others) is blurry, *no* risk on other people should be required to be insured. Now you admit the blurry boundary does not suffice as a reason people shouldn't have to carry liability insurance.
  
  This is simplistic but brings up a good question: who makes sure that drivers are insured, and how do they do it?
  
  One easy solution is for there to be a transponder that sends a signal that the car to which it's attached is insured. It can be anonymized.
  

  Published: January 10, 2007 2:54 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  Who checks the transponders? Who enforces the rule? What is the penalty?

  You were claiming that *because* the boundary (between how much risk would violate the rights of others) is blurry, *no* risk on other people should be required to be insured.

  Oh I was? Thanks for letting me know, because I was unaware of saying or implying anything like that.

  Published: January 10, 2007 3:01 PM

• Person

  Roy_W._Wight, you said this: "The problem with your reasoning is this: Just about every action I take carries with it some risk, great or small, to others. How do you decide the risk threshold for mandated insurance? ... why not only punish people who actually cause damage that they are unable to compensate for?"
  
  Does that count as saying or implying anything like "because* the boundary (between how much risk would violate the rights of others) is blurry, *no* risk on other people should be required to be insured." ? Because I think it does.
  
  Who checks the transponders? Who enforces the rule? What is the penalty?
  
  The road is guarded like any other land, and they're treated the same as any trespasser. Are you slow today, or did you just want me to hold your hand?

  Published: January 10, 2007 3:30 PM

• Academician

  Person,
  
  I live in the state of California, which has mandatory auto insurance, yet I (by choice) pay for "uninsured motorist" coverage on my policy. Why do you suppose that would be?

  Published: January 10, 2007 3:53 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  The road is guarded like any other land, and they're treated the same as any trespasser.

  At the discretion of the road's owner? Then we agree, apparently.

  Are you slow today, or did you just want me to hold your hand?

  If you're going to resort to childish insults, on top of your eagerness to mischaracterize my arguments, I think I'll take my leave of this conversation until and unless it becomes intelligent and civil again.

  Published: January 10, 2007 4:04 PM

• Person

  Academician:I live in the state of California, which has mandatory auto insurance, yet I (by choice) pay for "uninsured motorist" coverage on my policy. Why do you suppose that would be?
  
  Because not all people respect the rights of others.
  
  If you're going to resort to childish insults, on top of your eagerness to mischaracterize my arguments, I think I'll take my leave of this conversation until and unless it becomes intelligent and civil again.
  
  Roy_W._Wright, you asked a stupid question you already knew the answer to, and you got upset when I refuted your premise. The problem's on your end.

  Published: January 10, 2007 4:24 PM

• Academician

  Person:Because not all people respect the rights of others.
  
  That's part of the answer, but it's not complete. The reason is because not everyone follows the law, and so I have to take my own security into my own hands anyway.
  Your initial assertion was: "... no mandatory paying damages when you wreck someone's car..." My point is that even with mandatory auto insurance, there is no mandatory payment of damages when you wreck someone's car. In California, there are still plenty of people (many of them illegal immigrants) who do not have auto insurance, and if I did not have "uninsured driver" coverage I would simply be SOL when one of them hit me (which has not happened to me, but has happened to members of my immediate family). I doubt things are really that different in NH - and since uninsured driver coverage exists, you still have a means of protecting yourself from losing out when you get hit by someone who can not pay.

  Published: January 10, 2007 4:55 PM

• Sione

  Person

  "Other people" are responsible for assuming the burden of their own risk- same as you. "Other people" consent to taking their individual risks as soon as they decide to take their cars out onto the road. That's their decision and they assume the responsibility.

  Just as you are an individual responsible for your decisions an the consequent risks, so is each and every individual in the group "other people". That's life and it isn't necessarily fair.

  Sione

  Published: January 10, 2007 7:09 PM

• averros

  ...and the real problem with mandatory car insurance is not only that State requires everyone to pay, but also that the same State restricts liability for causing grievous damage.

  If running over somebody placed the perpetrator into position of forefeiting his life (lex talonis, or principle of proportionality) - we'd see significantly more careful driving and a lot of demand for safety technology (like IR-enchanced night vision, automated collision prevention systems, etc) which is technically feasible today, but not widely deployed because it is considered costly - and, ironically, considered as creating intolerably high tort liabilities for manufacturers. People will actually desire to learn good driving - not just to learn barely enough to pass state tests.

  And we'd also see a lot less of private driving and much more commercial transportation operated by professional drivers. It would also cause the operators to prefer rail-based or otherwise isolated roadways, which are much safer than free-for-all public highways.

  (And, despite all that American infatuation with driving, the time spent behind the wheel is, bascially, wasted. Just think how many things you could do, like reading, watching TV, chatting with friends, or simply relaxing and watching the scenery roll - instead of dodging half-blind grandpas and teenages with gonads bigger than brains).

  Again, the law of unintended consequences makes mockery of the noble goals of socialists - without their meddling we'd have both much safer (really safer) roads and lot less pollution.

  Published: January 11, 2007 3:47 AM

• Sam

  Is it me or did you argument seem a little bit contradictory averros? You said how bulk transportation would be a kick in the teeth for the proverbial Socialist but then said that this type of transportation would cut down on individual private ownership of vehicles. Is this akin to saying private organisations that have the role of part police-part defence force would be better and more efficient than individual firearm ownership? Interesting if there enough part police-part-defence organisations to allow competition and prevent monopolies it probably would be more efficient since individuals are mostly hurt and killed in domestic spats than the unknown intruder/murderer.

  Published: January 11, 2007 4:12 AM

• Person

  Acad:The reason is because not everyone follows the law, and so I have to take my own security into my own hands anyway.
  
  I don't see how that contradicts my claim that people should be required to be capable of paying damages before they drive on the roads.
  
  My point is that even with mandatory auto insurance, there is no mandatory payment of damages when you wreck someone's car.
  
  So you're a little slow at picking up saracasm. When I made that comment, I was simply pointing out that "no mandatory insurance" is saying that the state approves of you knowingly exposing others to levels of risk you can't compensate for, and thus, amounts to unnecessarily stacking the roads with more drivers who can cause you damages and never pay. So I still don't get your little "insight".
  
  Sione_Vatu:That's life and it isn't necessarily fair.
  
  Yes, life _is_not_ fair. But if you think back to what the thread was actually discussing, you'll recall that we were discussing what is necessary for there to be fairness, and I have established that being insured against possible damages before you drive on a road is one of them. I'm hoping for more relevance from your future comments.

  Published: January 11, 2007 8:53 AM

• Scott D

  Person, there seems to be some confusion over what your postion actually is. If you are arguing that insurance should be state-mandated, you are wrong. If you are arguing that holding insurance could be a condition of driving on a private road, imposed by the road's owner, that seems reasonable. Though, I have to add that in a libertarian society, car insurance would probably not look much like it does now, if it existed at all.

  The way you're wording it though, seems to indicate that you think it is correct for you, personally, to require other drivers to hold insurance to protect you from them. Call me silly, but that seems inconsistent with freedom.

  Published: January 11, 2007 10:37 AM

• Person

  Scott_D:Person, there seems to be some confusion over what your postion actually is. If you are arguing that insurance should be state-mandated, you are wrong.
  
  Why? Because of the "state-mandated" bit? My position is no different in that respect than saying that "Killing someone and selling his head on ebay should be state-banned."
  
  Though, I have to add that in a libertarian society, car insurance would probably not look much like it does now, if it existed at all.
  
  You don't think there are circumstances where people would have to verify capabilty of covering potentially large torts?
  
  The way you're wording it though, seems to indicate that you think it is correct for you, personally, to require other drivers to hold insurance to protect you from them. Call me silly, but that seems inconsistent with freedom.
  
  Why is it inconsistent with freedom that you can't expose me to large risks you already know you will be incapable of compensating?

  Published: January 11, 2007 12:55 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Person

  You're evading the point.

  Your position was to support compulsory insurance. That is, that everyone who takes a car onto the road must be required to purchase insurance.

  My position was (subject to a particular caveat) that each person who takes a car onto the road assumes a risk and is therefore responsible for dealing with that risk. A person may or may not choose to be insured based on their individual subjective assessment of the risk and the potential outcomes of assuming it.

  If, for example, you believed that the likelyhood of some naughty driver crashing into you brand new $550,000.00 Ferarri was too high for you, then you wouldn't take it onto the road. By taking it onto the road you are acepting the risks involved and judging them as acceptible to you. Same situation occurs for me and my Brabus Mercedes 600. Same for everyone else (the "other people").

  Once you have decided to take the Ferrari onto the road you then have a decision about whether to insure it or not- whether or not to balance regular budgeted overhead against catastropic loss a crash may involve. The decision to purchase insurance protection is yours in exactly the same way the decsion to drive the Ferrari on the road was yours or even the decision to buy it in the first place was yours. Same for me. Same for the "other people" you want to soak to pay for your insurance protection.

  Anyway, rather than arguing a triviality why don't you try addressing the core essentials?

  Sione

  PS are you the same "Person" who has been involved in debate regarding IP matters on other threads?

  Published: January 11, 2007 12:58 PM

• Person

  Sione_Vatu:My position was (subject to a particular caveat) that each person who takes a car onto the road assumes a risk and is therefore responsible for dealing with that risk. A person may or may not choose to be insured based on their individual subjective assessment of the risk and the potential outcomes of assuming it.
  
  And I agree that they have every right to deal with the damage *to themselves*. But to other people, is another story; there (as you probably agree in the case nukes) they are placing others at risk and it's not longer an individual matter.
  
  If, for example, you believed that the likelyhood of some naughty driver crashing into you brand new $550,000.00 Ferarri was too high for you, then you wouldn't take it onto the road. By taking it onto the road you are acepting the risks involved and judging them as acceptible to you. Same situation occurs for me and my Brabus Mercedes 600. Same for everyone else (the "other people").
  
  And I agree that the damages should be capped precisely to prevent this sort of thing, where people want more simply for placing more at risk. i.e., Over a limit, people should only expect to be compensated for a fraction of the damages specifically because they brought an above-average cost vehicle into that area that one cannot expect all others to insure against. But this is not an argument for having no insurance requirement altogether.
  
  Anyway, rather than arguing a triviality why don't you try addressing the core essentials?
  
  I did, and this is no triviality. What do you think I failed to address out of the "core essentials"?
  
  PS are you the same "Person" who has been involved in debate regarding IP matters on other threads?
  
  Yes. Are you the same Sione_Vatu responsible for me unnecessarily re-explaining my position on those threads more than eight times?

  Published: January 11, 2007 1:26 PM

• Joe

  Good God Almighty, Person, you have to be the most annoying poster I've ever come across on this blog. You are not a libertarian, you don't understand the issues and you have highjacked this thread. Just shut up.

  Published: January 11, 2007 4:43 PM

• Person

  Joe: What's annoying? That I make errors, or that I don't? And what have I said that is necessarily non-libertarian?

  Published: January 11, 2007 9:26 PM

• Person

  Oh, and, for bonus points, tell me what I said that was off-topic.

  Published: January 11, 2007 9:28 PM

• Reactionary

  Sione,

  If the rule is that people assume the risk of others' breach of duty, then responsible individuals must necessarily subsidize the injuries inflicted by negligent individuals. Since no insurer or self-insured individual would long tolerate such a situation, the rule would change to what has been the case for millenia: at-fault parties are responsible for the damage they cause.

  Published: January 12, 2007 9:00 AM

• Sione Vatu

  Person

  In your scheme of compulsory third party insurance, by what principle do you set a value limit above which such insurance is not necessary- that is, it no longer provides cover?

  Sione

  PS
  There have been several people posting under the nom de plume, "person" or, in some cases, "Person". Similarly there have been several posters going by the names, "TGGP", T.G.G.P" and "tggp." I understand you to have been one or more of these, in some instances corresponding (and agreeing) with yourself. For reasons of certainty I sought to establish whether I was dealing with you or some other person.

  BTW you never were able to explain your position regarding IP matters as you didn't actually have one. You conceded that you didn't state a position as all you were out to do was to attack the statements and arguments of other posters. Oh dear!
  

  Published: January 12, 2007 3:15 PM

• Kevin

  It seems to me that the problem is at root with public roads. Privatize the roads and problem is solved, right?

  There are plenty of other birds we can kill with this one stone, eh?

  Published: January 12, 2007 3:53 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Reactionary

  "If the rule is that people assume the risk of others' breach of duty, then responsible individuals must necessarily subsidize the injuries inflicted by negligent individuals."

  Yes, you are completely correct. Responsible people do that now. Probably always have & always will to a greater or lesser degree. It's part of the burden of risk you assume unfortunately.

  My original point was that each individual is responsible for assessing and deciding what to do about his or her own risk. The risk in taking a car out onto the road includes the possibility that there may be a crash. That's the risk you necessarily assume should you decide to go onto the road. As it's an individual risk, the individual is the one upon whom the burden to deal with it falls. This principle applies regardless of the value of the automobile concerned.

  Subsequent to the risk of crash are a series of possibilities relating to the nature of the crash should it actually occur, the participants in the crash, their actions, attributes and resources. A possibility is that someone else causes the crash or that the crash is someone else's "fault". That is one possibility of many. Another is that it may not be possible to establish a causal or "at fault" party at all (most commonly the case despite what people like to assert- expert drivers and assessors they all pretend to be!). It is possible you may be the one held to be "at fault", rightly or wrongly. There is also the possibility (most commonly the true situation, although generally not identified) that the responsibility for the crash is shared among several parties (British sea law is particularly interesting in dealing with this sort of thing). Finally there are "acts of God" as insurers are want to call them (what a mean fellow the God of insurers must be!). These are all sub-sets of the risk originally assumed in going out onto the road. They can be minimised in various ways but that is the responsibility of the individual upon whom the risk falls.

  Let's assume that it be determined a party is "at fault" after an accident. Obviously we could claim that party must make restitution for damages they are held to have "caused". Fair enough. Putting aside personal injury and death (for reasons of brevity), there is the issue of mens rea or intent to deal with in assessing restitution or is that not a valid aspect to evaluate? It would seem to be.

  The award of damages against the “at fault” party could mean a lot of money for them to pay. In the case of the Ferrari, that would be a whole lot of money. But the "at fault" party who crashed into the Fazz may not be in a position to make restitution. In the less expensive case of a family sedan such as a 2nd gen Chrysler Intrepid (say) they still may not be able to make restitution. In the case of a 1970s Ford Pinto they still may find it impossible to make restitution. That may be due to insufficient personal wealth and resources. It may be due to insufficient insurance cover or lay-off. It may be due to personal circumstances- whatever. Those "nature of the other party" scenarios each remain a sub-set of the risk the car owner takes upon himself by driving on the road. It's his risk to assume or to avoid. If he assumes it he may choose to minimise it in various ways, but he certainly has no right to force other people to subsidise him in an action to minimise the downside costs of his risk profile.

  What I am getting at is that whenever I take the Brabus onto the road I have to anticipate there is a real risk that someone else may cause a crash and damage or write-off the car. Assuming that person can be shown to be the causal factor and hence “at fault” for the damage, then that person is indeed responsible. However it is also possible that person may not be (& may never be) in the position to make restitution to me. Whether that’s a matter of insufficient cover, a dishonest insurer, a lack of wealth or whatever, is irrelevant. Those possibilities are a portion of my risk in deciding to venture onto the road. I accept them each time I so do. Further, I have no right to force anyone to subsidise my downside. Same deal goes for anyone else.

  Finally, what we are dealing with here is a hierarchy of concepts and principle. Getting the hierarchy in order is important. What should also be borne in mind are the restrictions of the premise I originally stated for this particular discussion.

  Talofa!

  Sione
  

  Published: January 12, 2007 4:19 PM

• Kevin

  I do not agree with the comparison of the possession of nukes to dangerous traffic.

  To put it simply:

  In the case of roads, I am not in danger of someone smashing into my Lamborghini Diablo until I enter the roadway.

  Others bringing nukes into my neighborhood can pose a threat threat of injury without any action on my part.

  Published: January 12, 2007 4:29 PM

• Blah

  Kevin,
  
  
  I agree. Privatize the roads, and either road owners in general will require car insurance, or they won't. Either road owners will ban drunk drivers, or they won't. I'll live with whatever the market decides.
  
  
  To me, a more interesting question is, how do you deal with risk caused by your neighbors? For instance, what if I'm a farmer, and my neighbor has prairie dogs on his land? I can't simply avoid the risk that my crops will not be damaged by staying off his property, the way I might avoid risk to my car by staying off a certain road. Do I only have a right to kill the prairie dogs if I manage to catch them on my land? You can't really say that my neighbor is causing the crop damage; rather, he is simply harboring the creatures that are causing the damage. What do other libertarians think about this issue?

  Published: January 12, 2007 4:36 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Kevin

  Privatisation of the roads changes matters substantially. In that case some road owners may well require insurance and some may not. The driver of an automobile would need to be cogniscant of the rules the road owner set for those traversing his property- his road.

  You are also dead right about the nukes analogy. I ignored it because it does not relate to the roads situation. It's a worthless analogy. Erroneous.

  Sione

  
  

  Published: January 12, 2007 4:49 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  You can't really say that my neighbor is causing the crop damage; rather, he is simply harboring the creatures that are causing the damage. What do other libertarians think about this issue?

  Harbor an engineered prairie dog virus on your land.

  (Just kidding, mostly.)

  Published: January 12, 2007 4:53 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Blah

  Depends on context.

  Your neighbour may be "farming" p-dogs & consider them his "pets" or some such. Then your best approach is to inform him that you don't want them coming over onto your land and you require him to keep them restricted to his own property. Failing that you will minimise your losses by taking action such as:
  a) preventing them coming over (an electric fence or some such which you may require him to contribute towards the cost of)
  b) holding him responsible for damage his p-dogs cause to your crops (should you be able to so prove)
  c) a final sanction if the other steps fail to reach the desired solution), eliminatation of any of his p-dogs that stray over the boundary.

  
  Your neighbour may not care about the p-dogs one way or the other (he may consider them valueless or pests). In that case you can eliminate any one of them that strays onto your land. Shoot away! You certainly should inform him that since the p-dogs are coming from his property and straying onto yours you expect him to do something about them- like kill 'em! More shooting! If he fails to respond you can treat the situation as in the previous case.

  The way forward is to defend your propetry and minimise your losses. But you must always act in the knowledge that your neighbour is also a human being with the attribute of reason. First go to him and appeal to that attribute. In the final analysis, the situation is contextual and your decisions should be according to context.

  Sione

  Published: January 12, 2007 5:08 PM

• John

  I find it amusing that "Person" never admits that he may be the one putting people at risk on the roads. And, if he got into such a predicament that he might want to pay for the damages directly rather than going through a third party.

  As I, and I am sure many other people can attest, "insurance" companies these days are not all they are cracked up to be. Their services being mandatory in most states and all.

  Published: January 12, 2007 6:49 PM

• averros

  Sam -- you are making false dichotomies, probably because you're conditioning by the traditional statist agendas.

  There's nothing conflicting in increased private ownership of vehicles and roads *and* reduced individual driving. The inconsistency you see is only because you are used to think of mass transportation as being public. It does not have to be public. Indeed, one of the reasons for the pitiful state of public transportation in US is precisely because it is, er, public. (The story of railroads in US is highly instructive.)

  Similarly, private ownership of guns does not confilict with efficient private protection organizations - they serve different roles (dealing with immediate danger in case of guns, and investigation, deterrence, and extracting restitution in the second case). Only fools believe that police protects from criminals - the best it can possibly do is to deter them to a some extent. When someone assaults you on a dark street, you're on your own.

  Published: January 12, 2007 9:20 PM

• averros

  you're [affected by the] conditioning

  Published: January 12, 2007 9:22 PM

• Sam

  Actually I was thinking that individual driving equalled more freedom because the driver could go where he wanted, when he wanted and return when wanted. Most mass transport is about adhering to pre-set destinations and pre-set arrival and departure. But then again there are taxi cabs, charter planes, etc.

  Published: January 12, 2007 9:45 PM

• Sam

  How would you define self-defence in a Libertarian society averros? Especially if found you're in a dark alley holding a smoking gun and a dead guy on the ground who's also clutching a gun? How could you show that you were the victim who acted in self-defence or a murderer claiming self-defence? Would a unwritten Wild West rule be that the one who's alive gets the benefit of the doubt? If this allows a loophole for a sleight-of-hand murder then so be it? Or would the remedy be don't go down empty streets rather find one with onlookers who can serve as witnesses?

  I'm sure it's safe to say that self-defence in modern society is rather tricky to defend without witnesses.

  Published: January 12, 2007 10:04 PM

• Peter

  How do you deal with that situation today, Sam?

  Published: January 12, 2007 10:39 PM

• Sam

  Well like I said before people are more likely to get hurt or killed in a domestic tiff than the unknown violent intruder/mugger/serial killer. And yes luckily enough I haven't been held up by the violent mugger/killer hence I can't comment personally. But viewing legal cases (hence how modern societies currently legally deal with the situaton) about folks who haved shot someone else dead on the claim of self-defence doesn't fill me with awe that people can act in self-defence and expect the law to necessarily back them up.

  Published: January 12, 2007 11:07 PM

• Steve Consilvio

  The road is a public place. Use it at your own risk.

  When the government compels people to purchase insurance, then it gives an advantage to a private industry. Obviously, having the government insure drivers would be just as bad.

  People are more reasonable than you think.

  Before you can arrive at a policy, you need to arrive at the principle. Accidents happen, it is part of life. Insurace is based on the false economic claim that pooling risk lowers risk. That's crazy. The risk is exactly the same, but now an insurance agent is profiting on the fear of accidents. Like taxes, it is an increase of overhead. Not only does insurance not lower risks, it actually increases the costs of driving and of society as a whole. All those people pushing paper are not doing anything productive.

  No insurance should be mandatory, and no court cases should be heard for what happens on a public road. Nobody drives with the intention of harming themselves. The whole insurance system is a mathematical farce.

  www.behappyandfree.com

  Published: January 12, 2007 11:26 PM

• Reactionary

  Steve,

  "The road is a public place. Use it at your own risk."

  Again, this is tantamount to saying that you assume the risk that other people will act irresponsibly, which effectively means that responsible people will bear the costs imposed by irresponsible people. Obviously people with assets to protect would not tolerate such a situation, so there would be massive capital flight from any place where insurance was not widely purchased, if not mandatory as a condition of living in the community.

  Sione,

  Your post is incomprehensible.

  Published: January 13, 2007 3:59 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  There is much confusion about what insurance really is. The common idea is that it is about pooling risk among large numbers of people. But the best description of what insurance actually is (or perhaps I should say "should be", given government interference in the insurance industry), is that of grouping the risk of a homogenous group of people. "Homogenous" so that these people are in the same category or level of risk, and thus, while no one can predict which particular people will need the insurance, the insurance company can statistically figure out what percentage of people will need payouts, and thus determine appropriate rates of insurance.
  
  Mixing different groups of people (such as race-car drivers with commuters or weekend drivers) means that low-risk people are subsidizing the costs of high-risk people. The cause of the high risk might be irresponsibility, or it might simply be a different set of circumstances. Mandatory insurance thus tends to lead to mixing different groups and thus forcing low-risk people to subsidize high-risk people (unless you have an exceptionally enlightened government regulation).
  
  Overall, real insurance is a benefit to individuals who want to minimize their risk, especially if the insurance company is doing a good job of grouping people and their risks. Uninsured motorist coverage is your best bet if you are worried about OTHER people, because as has already been pointed out, mandatory insurance cannot guarantee that everybody will have insurance, and I would bet that mandatory coverage actually weakens the value of insurance in the first place.
  
  Insurance companies could be doing more to "punish" people, if allowed to, without being an authoritarian government. For example, you pay for uninsured motorist coverage, and if you get hit by an uninsured motorist who cannot cover the costs of damage, the insurance company covers your costs, and then they should be able to pursue recovery of costs from the other motorist. Thus, he faces financial risk and ruin for driving without insurance. As it is now, the government simply makes you pay a small fine (relative to possible damages) if caught without insurance.

  Published: January 14, 2007 12:55 PM

• Reactionary

  Michael,

  UM/UIM insurers are allowed to pursue subrogation against uninsured drivers and frequently do so particularly if the UM/UIM is a wage earner. For that matter, the UM/UIM is subject to personal liability to the individual plaintiff or must face the prospect of bankruptcy. There is actually all the incentive out there that one needs to purchase insurance. It's just that there are also lots of irresponsible people with nothing to lose.

  Published: January 14, 2007 1:06 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Nothing to lose but their cars, you mean, or else how did they get into a car accident?

  Published: January 14, 2007 1:31 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Sorry, shouldn't have been so short in my response. In real insurance, the payments by the insured will cover the costs of damages. The insurance company being able to recover costs is a bonus, and the incentive for them to ensure that the responsible party doesn't get off scot-free.
  
  The question is which system is most effective at deterring uninsured motorists, a mandatory law or the natural workings of insurance and a restitutional legal system?

  Published: January 14, 2007 1:39 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Reactionary

  Premise: The road owner does not require drivers of vehicles traversing his property (the road) to possess insurance.
  
  1/. An individual taking car onto road assumes certain risks in so doing. One of these is that he may be involved in a crash which damages or writes-off his vehicle.

  2/. The decision to venture onto the road is that individual's choice. There is a risk that comes with this decision. That risk his or hers to bear. That is, it is the individual's risk to bear. He or she may or may not make further decisions to limit the downside of the risk being taken. It is still the individual's risk to take and to deal with the consequences of.

  3/. Subsequent to assuming the risk it is possible that a crash may occur. Further it is also possible that the crash can be shown to be caused by some other party who is held to be "at fault." Further it is possible that the "at fault" party may not be able to make restitution. Those are all part of the risk assumed when taking one's car onto the road.

  4/. It is invalid to attempt to force other people to subsidise your risk downside.

  Now what don't you comprehend precisely?

  ---

  You write: "Again, this is tantamount to saying that you assume the risk that other people will act irresponsibly, which effectively means that responsible people will bear the costs imposed by irresponsible people."

  That occurs now in many situations (and not only for driving cars on roads). It always has occurred and it always will occur. Responsible people need to be cognisant of irresponsible people. There is a risk that the actions of the irresponsible may harm you. That's part of life.

  You wrote: "Obviously people with assets to protect would not tolerate such a situation, so there would be massive capital flight from any place where insurance was not widely purchased, if not mandatory as a condition of living in the community."

  To demonstrate your statement is false, visit New Zealand. There one will find some of the finest roads in the World. Some feature breathtaking scenery, some are real driver's roads (very challenging and a lot of fun) but no matter where you drive over there, third party insurance is not compulsory. People with assets (such as very expensive automobiles, trucks, motor-homes etc.) tolerate this situation. There has not been massive capital flight (but there has been a massive capital in-flow into NZ).

  I assume the context was that of driving on roads. If not, you should state up front what the revised context is and why you have chosen to expand it.

  Sione

  Published: January 14, 2007 1:54 PM

• Reactionary

  Sione,

  What I don't comprehend is how you arrive at an ethic whereby people assume the risk of breach of duty by others. If I get drunk, hop in my car, cross the centerline, and wipe out your family, you would not be able to recover a penny because, after all, your family assumed the risk of drunk drivers. Can you see why your novel legal regimen makes no sense and would be rejected by anybody with assets to protect?

  Re: New Zealand, it has socialized the risk of accidental injury by public health care and, at this point anyway, its society is cohesive enough to bear the cost. Also, its legal system follows the common law rule of requiring negligent parties to pay for the damages caused by their negligence.

  Published: January 15, 2007 1:29 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Reactionary

  You wrote: "If I get drunk, hop in my car, cross the centerline, and wipe out your family, you would not be able to recover a penny because, after all, your family assumed the risk of drunk drivers."

  Depends on context. Staying with the original premise, we have these options:

  1/. You died at the scene. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. Your estate can't pay restitution.

  2/. You survive the accident. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. You can't pay restitution (lack of wealth, resource, nature of injuries sustained by you - whatever).

  3/. You survive the accident. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. You have sufficient wealth to pay restitution.
  
  I may be able to extract some cash from you in case three. However in all three situations the losses are irrecoverable. It is impossible for you or anyone else to repair the damage done. The presence of insurance or lack thereof makes little difference.

  My family in venturing out onto the road assumed the risk that there may be an accident. That risk includes the three possibilities listed above (and others as well).

  How is compulsory insurance going to protect my family in the situation exactly? Even had you been insured, you can't raise the dead. You may have been insured but insurance didn't stop you from having the accident. My downside (not to mention that of the family) is unaltered by the presence of an insurance scheme.

  Regarding New Zealand.
  You are starting to dissemble and prevaricate. While aspects of the NZ Health system may be socialised, that has little bearing on the topic of assumed risk. As far as I recall (having resided in NZ for many years) the NZ health system does not assume responsibility for repairing cars, trucks, cargo, property etc.

  Secondly, your knowledge of NZ Law is erroneous. The individual is frequently prohibited from taking action to extract damages from negligent parties. The Common Law principles which would recognise such a right have long since been superceded in NZ legislation.*

  Third. Still no capital flight from NZ due to insurance or lack thereof.

  Sione

  * interestingly, one of the somewhat pragmatic principles applied by the framers of NZ legislation was that of avoiding the litigious nightmare that exists in the USA. There was a real repugnance for that and a strenuous effort undertaken to avoid it. Of course, that does not mean that NZ legislation is perfect- far from it, but it did influence the bias towards a "no fault" premise.

  Published: January 17, 2007 2:54 PM

• Don Birkholz

  Very few people know that if you force an indigent to buy auto insurance (Say 500$ worth), they can go down to the food stamp office and get it back). I collected 3,000$ of food stamps starting in 1987, due to Montana's auto insurance law.

  I then did a food stamp study that linked many food stamp skyrockets with auto insurance laws.

  Then I got the DPHHS to do a survey in Billings, MT that indicated 12 of 96 food stamp applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps (thats 30,000 over the last 20 years in Montana).

  So, before the states require any more indigents to buy auto insurance, they should watch their food stamp numbers. I have started an organization for those opposed to auto insurance (type in mandatory auto insurance in the blog search and you should get it on the first page, or type in Don Birkholz in the blog search).
  

  Published: April 3, 2007 4:04 PM