If you think about it though, insurance prices would be driven down if it was optional, and those who dont have insurance would be forced to accept that they would lose everything they own in the event of the wreck. It would embolden the free market IMO. But i agree it is a likely state to state issue.
There is nothing wrong with the owner of a road requiring its patrons carry liability insurance. The real problem is that the state owns all the roads. But just because they state requires insurance doesn't make it necessarily evil.
I would think that a Libertarian would be able to make the claim that you are not entitled to expose your neighbor to undue risk, and thereby driving the premiums for uninsured motorist coverage sky high. But I agree that RP would want the States to each decide on the right balance of social compliance vs. the freedom to drive uninsured.
I have often wondered why a person like Bill Gates would be required to have automobile insurance. Seems he would be able to afford to pay for what ever damage he caused if he wrecked his car and perhaps even killed somebody.
I have often wondered why a person like Bill Gates would be required to have automobile insurance. Seems he would be able to afford to pay for what ever damage he caused if he wrecked his car and perhaps even killed somebody.
I don't think he would personally favor those types of laws or mandatory helmet laws or anything like that, but I think he realizes they are Constitutionally-authorized. States have police power within their borders and if they that's what they want to do (through support of the people), then that's what they get to do.
I don't want to get hit by someone with no insurance. Basically, in that situation, I'm screwed because it's not worth it to sue, unless the car is totalled. But if they can't afford insurance then what will I get by suing them?