« Inflation targets & credibility | Main | Top of the market »

May 18, 2008

Comments

Kit

In a libertarian world the roads would be owned by "responsible people" as they would have an incentive to keep the roads safe from the "feckless and irresponsible". Their incentives would be far greater than the incentives in the current state system.

kinglear

Harsher penalties? Pull the other one. I live in Scotland where we have Sherrifs that deal with most criminal cases, several of whom I know personally. Their current complaint is that they put away people for 8 years or so for GBH, only to find the same people back in front of them 2 years later on the same charges. As theSherrifs say, the politicians have let the criminals out to make way for the people who are to serve 3 or 4 months for minor offences. Its a serious problem north of the border.

Mike Woodhouse

It should not necessarily be compulsory to have insurance. One could, for example, be permitted to place an approved sum in escrow as an alternative (a couple of million, say?). Or we could allow the death penalty in civil suits. Or slavery for those unable or unwilling to pay compensation. Lots of alternatives are available if only politicians had a little imagination.

dearieme

Cut their goolies off.

ad

"Perhaps a minimal state would lead not to responsible people governing themselves well, but rather to the feckless and irresponsible predating upon others."

Perhaps a minimal state would include a police and judicary. As in Victorian times.

Mike: "Lots of alternatives are available if only politicians had a little imagination."

How true.

Sam

Mike:

One can, no? (Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended: one may lodge 500,000 quid with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court in place of compulsory insurance).

Don

ad,

I'd personally stray away from suggesting the Victorian approach to crime and order was somehow better than ours. If someone style your property in Victorian times, you'd probably stand a better chance of catching the thief employing a bounty-hunter than contacting the police. I think I would prefer just paying my premiums.

That said, I am sure there are any number of ways that the insurance system could be made fairer.

Chris B

The questioner misses the answer to the question by omitting the fact that you're only compelled by law to have *third party* insurance in order to compensate other people; if you wish to destroy your own car and have no means of replacing it then you're free to.

Moreover, you're obliged to carry out an MOT in order to drive on the road, which also enriches a private company (the garage that carries the test out) so that bit is wrong too.

Jim

"It's not just welfare claimants who are parasites."

Wash your mouth out, you sorry excuse for a left-winger.

Bruce

Isn't "safety" always the reason that our liberties are eroded? We give up some liberty to guard us against the feckless, the irresponsibly and outright nasty? From ogligatory car insurance to CCT cameras to 42 days' detention without charge. Finding the right balance is the real issue and about that there will rightly be an ongoing debate.

f0ul

There is no excuse for forcing the entire population to have insurance because those who are the biggest risk, (the unisurable, criminal and feckless) drive without insurance anyway!

Why should I, with my 10 years no claims bonus have to buy car insurance by law, when I am able to drive over 300,000 miles without incident?


reason

Because it ensures other people that when you are now too old and feeble to drive they will at least be compensated for damages when you run in to them.

If the roads were all private (and so the others we subject to private suits), I'm absolutely certain either the rules would be tougher still, or you would have to enter at your own risk (like a paraschute jumper).

GeoffH

"And the individual is the best judge of what risks he wishes to take or not"

The questioner must be mad. It's not "the individual...that bears the risk" but the poor, unknowing sap he drives into.

Charlieman

An interesting post that makes you think about bloggers who drive without insurance and the value of their comments.

Classical liberalism requires us to regard third parties when we act; if our acts harm them, we are responsible for reparation. Most of us don't have millions in the bank so insurance is the way that we maintain our obligation to repay victims. When motorists have not thought about their personal responsibility, compulsory insurance provides protection for third parties. We don't have a state insurance company in the UK; there are thousands of insurance bodies who will provide a quote "based on you and your risk".

Greg ohio municipal courtlaw

I believe the intent of the statutes were good. However, they have gone to far. We now make criminals of everyday citizens who are otherwise productive, contributing members of our society. I believe the statutes should be graduating offenses with increasing penalties and sanctions for the number of offenses.

Greg ohio municipal courtlaw

I believe the intent of the statutes were good. However, they have gone to far. We now make criminals of everyday citizens who are otherwise productive, contributing members of our society. I believe the statutes should be graduating offenses with increasing penalties and sanctions for the number of offenses.

Car Insurance

While driving with out insurance is considered as crime and maximum penalties for driving without insurance are: 6-8 penalty points and discretionary disqualification; and £5000 fine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad