Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon1385 | Hacker News Reader

So you think people should be able to drive around on the roads without valid insurance?

Yes, I think people should have a choice. If the market wants insured taxis only, you will see that people only use those taxi-services that prove they have it. If not, then some will be using uninsured services at their own risk. No one has the right to tell me what choice am I supposed to make with my own money.

I think if you were (as a third party) struck by an uninsured taxi/ride share driver (or underinsured driver whose insurer won't cover the incident because he was transporting a passenger), you'd change that tune with a quickness.

This is not an argument against allowing the freedom of choice of how to spend my money and time. If I want more risk, I should absolutely have it. What you're saying is like saying "if you surf and get bitten by a shark, you would start reconsidering your attitude towards surfing, thinking maybe you shouldn't have gotten into the water in the first place". Should we ban surfing on the grounds that some people may actually regret it?

The point is to allow people to make their own choices. What you're advocating is depriving people of the choice of how to spend their money and manage their risk/reward options.

In your surfing example the surfer is at risk. That's not what we're discussing here.

You want other people to suffer a higher risk, just so you can save money.

And no matter how often you try to frame it as a matter of "I choose for myself", you're actually choosing for others.

That's highly illiberal and unfree, by the way.

So, let's leave out the insurance question and separate it from the taxi-licence issue. Provided that all cars are insured, how am I putting other people at risk by riding a cheaper unlicensed taxi?

Society has every right to tell you not to severely other people's lives.

I'm amazed that there are actually people who think it should be okay to drive around uninsured, so when you hit a pedestrian and he ends up a quadriplegic and in need of constant care, you just say "oh, I'm sorry, take all the ten thousand Euros I have and good life to you!".

I'm certain you'd see the stupidity of your point of view if you were the quadriplegic without any compensation.

Fortunately, in Europe we don't let those people learn their lesson the very hard way. We do the sensible thing and just demand insurance from everyone. Including self-proclaimed libertarian rebels against the system.

Am I not a part of the society? If I am, why is it that some part of the society, however big, is telling me how to spend my own money if it doesn't actually affect them at all?

It is my choice whether to insure myself or not. It is the choice of the driver whether to insure himself or not. It is the responsibility of the road owner to demand all cars have insurance. Unfortunately, we mostly have only one road owner these days: government. If you had plenty, then some would allow uninsured cars and some wouldn't. Then it would be up to both drivers and pedestrians to use those roads (this is one possible solution).

You're trying once again to draw an image of a libertarian as a ruthless individual who doesn't care about the misfortunes of other people. I do care very much about that and I would be happy to help out. What I am against is FORCE with which government demands people operate in the market very often against their will.

Some people are riskier. Some people are careful. As long as it doesn't affect another person, everyone should be free to do whatever the hell they want.

Finally, your elitist standpoint "we in Europe" is simply disgusting to me. I apologize for this emotional outbreak, but I have zero respect for collectivism. "You in Europe" are all different and by saying it they way you did, you simply disrespect people who have opposing views, not considering them a part of your society.

But roads! There aren't ever going to be several roads in parallel, going the same places, with different standards, that form a free market. That's ludicrous. Its an ideal place for government to step in, ensure a well-regulated network and enforce standards. You don't like that, ok. But you've got nothing to suggest as an alternative, that any modern society could afford.

What about my need to be reimbursed when you ram into me? Am I just our of luck because you didn't want to pay insurance? And btw, society has decided that some do in fact have the right to tell you how to spend your money. Ever paid taxes? Do you think those should be abolished as well?

I'm almost always on the side of less governmental power, but to believe that all regulations like these are unnecessary is just boneheaded.

> Yes, I think people should have a choice.

But you do. And when you choose to use a public service, you should obey the rules set forth by the governing body of that public service. What you are suggesting is that you have the right to decide what to spend your money on, but when others do it, it's wrong.

You are the one complaining about using public infrastructure and having to follow the rules when using it.

They already have an insurance that covers the passengers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com