Can government require insurance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to pay for the accidents they cause. Most drivers do this by buying automobile liability insurance. Liability insurance pays to repair or replace the other driver’s car and pays other people’s medical expenses when you are at fault in an accident.



If you buy insurance to meet the state’s financial responsibility law, you must purchase at least the minimum amount. The current minimum liability limits are $30,000 for each injured person, up to a total of $60,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage per accident. This basic coverage is called 30/60/25 coverage.



When you buy an auto policy, your insurance company will send you a proof-of-insurance card. You must show your current card when you...
  • are asked for it by a police officer
  • have an accident
  • register your car or renew its registration
  • receive or renew your driver’s license
  • have your car inspected.
The penalties for violating the state’s financial responsibility laws are
  • First offense: fine of $175 to $350
  • More offenses: fine of $350 to $1,000, suspension of your driver’s license, and impoundment of your automobile.
  • Offense without a driver’s license: $2,000 maximum fine, 180 days in jail, or both
  • Offense if you cause an accident with serious injuries or death: $4,000 maximum fine, one year in jail, or both

http://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/consumer/cb020.html
 
define unenforceable. can i be ticketed or arrested? sure, the gov can do anything it wants to because proles like you let them. it still doesn't mean they are constitutional. i'm sure that the difference between the two are lost on statists like yourself though.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
define unenforceable. can i be ticketed or arrested? sure, the gov can do anything it wants to because proles like you let them. it still doesn't mean they are constitutional. i'm sure that the difference between the two are lost on statists like yourself though.
Click to expand...

So are you saying you could be ticketed or arrested if you drive without a license or state-mandated insurance?
 
\(())/ said:
So are you saying you could be ticketed or arrested if you drive without a license or state-mandated insurance?
Click to expand...
did you misread what I typed? in todays fucked up governmental run society, anyone can be ticketed or arrested for anything, including non crimes. It's become that way because of apathy like yours. YOU could be arrested for aggravated assault on an officer because you brushed up against him accidentally and unless there is video of the incident showing otherwise, you'd likely be going to jail. that doesn't make it right, does it? same with an unconstitutional law requiring a person to have a drivers license in order to exercise the right to travel freely. one can be ticketed or arrested for it, but it doesn't make it right or constitutional.
 
\(())/ said:
Spell it out for me, then.

Are you claiming that allowing anyone to operate any mode of transportation without a license or insurance is OK?
Click to expand...

yes, private individuals not engaging in commerce may travel freely using the common modes of transport of the day.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. -*Chicago Motor Coach v*Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." -*Kent v Dulles, 357*U.S. 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes, private individuals not engaging in commerce may travel freely using the common modes of transport of the day. "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. -*Chicago Motor Coach v*Chicago 169 NE 22 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579. "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." -*Kent v Dulles, 357*U.S. 116, 125. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Click to expand...

So you're OK with unlicensed drivers with no insurance?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes, private individuals not engaging in commerce may travel freely using the common modes of transport of the day.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. -*Chicago Motor Coach v*Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." -*Kent v Dulles, 357*U.S. 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Click to expand...

Ok you've established that it is ther ight of the individual to move, freedom of transportation not being abridged and soforth, however drivers license falls under the category of regulating for public safety. I sure dont want a seven year old driving around in his dad's hummer or a grandmother who's been deaf and blind for three years cruising in her corvette. They're free to walk along the sidewalks without a license but I don't want them near me on the road. The point of licenses is to make sure fewer(not none because only divine intervention could remove them all together) car accidents happen, and that really is the governments place.
As for the insurance, that's a far more debateable subject, I think there are good reasons to require insurance, an example being a totally drunk dead beat father plowing his truck into the side of a store and not paying for any of it because he's broke. But again, a more debateable topic.
 
Disillusioned said:
Ok you've established that it is ther ight of the individual to move, freedom of transportation not being abridged and soforth, however drivers license falls under the category of regulating for public safety. I sure dont want a seven year old driving around in his dad's hummer or a grandmother who's been deaf and blind for three years cruising in her corvette. They're free to walk along the sidewalks without a license but I don't want them near me on the road. The point of licenses is to make sure fewer(not none because only divine intervention could remove them all together) car accidents happen, and that really is the governments place. As for the insurance, that's a far more debateable subject, I think there are good reasons to require insurance, an example being a totally drunk dead beat father plowing his truck into the side of a store and not paying for any of it because he's broke. But again, a more debateable topic.
Click to expand...

SmarterThanFew might change his mind if he's rear-ended by an illegal immigrant with no insurance...
 
\(())/ said:
SmarterThanFew might change his mind if he's rear-ended by an illegal immigrant with no insurance...
Click to expand...


Its spelled out for you in plain English 6 different times and you still don't fuckin' get it.....you prove, once an AssWipe, always an AssWipe....
 
Disillusioned said:
Ok you've established that it is ther ight of the individual to move, freedom of transportation not being abridged and soforth, however drivers license falls under the category of regulating for public safety.
Click to expand...
no, there isn't. allowing this sort of idiocy would give the state free reign to declare anything necessary for public safety. something the founders wanted prohibited to the state.

Disillusioned said:
I sure dont want a seven year old driving around in his dad's hummer or a grandmother who's been deaf and blind for three years cruising in her corvette.
Click to expand...
then don't let yours do it.

Disillusioned said:
They're free to walk along the sidewalks without a license but I don't want them near me on the road.
Click to expand...
neither you, the states, or the feds have the power to determine how an individual travels about. none.

Disillusioned said:
The point of licenses is to make sure fewer(not none because only divine intervention could remove them all together) car accidents happen, and that really is the governments place.
Click to expand...
the point of licenses is revenue only. the rest is security theater. don't be a dumbass.


Disillusioned said:
As for the insurance, that's a far more debateable subject, I think there are good reasons to require insurance, an example being a totally drunk dead beat father plowing his truck into the side of a store and not paying for any of it because he's broke. But again, a more debateable topic.
Click to expand...
that's what jails are for. if a person can't stop driving drunk, he shouldn't be allowed in society. suspending or revoking his license is not going to stop him from driving.
 
\(())/ said:
SmarterThanFew might change his mind if he's rear-ended by an illegal immigrant with no insurance...
Click to expand...

no, i won't. that might be how YOU operate, but that's also how governments abuse their power, by moron statists like you who demand that the government 'do something'.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, i won't. that might be how YOU operate, but that's also how governments abuse their power, by moron statists like you who demand that the government 'do something'.
Click to expand...

When did I "demand that the government 'do something'?" Link up.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, there isn't. allowing this sort of idiocy would give the state free reign to declare anything necessary for public safety. something the founders wanted prohibited to the state.

then don't let yours do it.

neither you, the states, or the feds have the power to determine how an individual travels about. none.

the point of licenses is revenue only. the rest is security theater. don't be a dumbass.


that's what jails are for. if a person can't stop driving drunk, he shouldn't be allowed in society. suspending or revoking his license is not going to stop him from driving.
Click to expand...
I think it's cute how you want the government to come up with all these rights for you then lock up the drunkard, wouldn't that be "abridging his freedom"? As for the founders, who cares what they wanted, they're dead, they were all 1%ers and mostly self appointed and interested in nobody getting their hands on the founders rights. I take a little government interference if it keeps me from getting run over by somebody who is most interested in their rights than actually knowing how to drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top