Specific Topic: Government Mandated Auto liability Insurance.

(This is not given as legal advice as whatever is said should be looked at carefully by an attorney).

Mandatory auto insurance may be a societal good with clear brilliance in benevolent reward to all from the booming financial insurance industry to the poverty stricken rural community. On the other hand it may be a parasite attached forcefully to a society already under too much pressure or a stench of a newly revised scheme of protectionism by a ingeniously integrated racketeering ring. More likely, it could be something in between. Mainstream society accepts it. Divergent circles question it, and that is the purpose of this article. However, let’s keep the discussion simple and relevant leaving the complexity in the mind and heart of the conscientious livers that help keep us on the straight and narrow by bringing these kinds of divergent opinions. For it is with divergent but reasonable opinions that the founding fathers established the nation and propelled it to pride and prominence.

The arguments for mandatory insurance are everywhere publicized and parroted. The establishment line is already represented. Jumping right in on the other side; if mandatory auto insurance for all is an equitable law than why does it fetter and in some cases block access to a connecting road system so important to our society that its non-restriction is written as a privilege guaranteed by the constitution and/or Bill of Bights?

If it is equitable, than why is this restriction a burden not primarily to the middle class, well to do, and wealthy, but instead to the lower middle class the lower class and the poor? Why would the people write off as equitable, a law that makes criminals and public burdens of poverty stricken citizens who would otherwise follow greater ambition and the American dream? In example: Why is a young man or woman with a well kept car and a conscientious and stellar driving record who can barely afford the fuel to pursue her ambitions, subjected either to consideration of disobedience or to an inability to use the road system in the same way as his/her financially more secure competitor? 

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan decades ago it left a power vacuum for societal scum to fill. Among the many evils wrought on society by these opportunistic wretches, was a toll system on the public roadways maintained by force of power. For those with money or clout it was not a problem. For the rest it was a parasitic drain and often a restriction on movement that crippled the lower economic levels of society and pushed them to worse ills including closure of schools, involvement in opium trade, trading of sex or favors, and the loss of ideals and dignity.

In the US, we have a road system that connects our nation like the arteries of the body to the heart. The heart is any common person’s home, from which they may access every area of the nation within the constraints of fuel and motility. Public transportation, though more efficient and more environmentally sustainable is not developed and simply not an option—at present—of any serious merit. Bicycles, though elegantly efficient and refreshingly healthy to ride, are disproportionately dangerous in and around the countryside and are not allowed on many of the highways and freeways. Horses are even more dangerous and restricted, without the boast of speed or efficiency. America has chosen the personal automobile as the norm of transportation and the entire system is built to accommodate it. Any other transportation mode is at this time a great and significant handicap or worse. Unfettered access to the roadway by personal automobile is therefore a necessity to all healthy and able citizens who so choose. We do not provide everyone who cannot afford one with a vehicle, but somehow the range of costs is so accommodating and the trading so grassroots that all who need one can have one. Some are old, some are new, some are simple some complex, but even the poorest have them and often for free as I experienced two times in my life during times of need to access employment. Is the person physically able to drive safely? Do they understand the common agreements/rules of the road and what they should do to drive as safely as possible? Is the automobile in good working order? Any certifications of such within reason are to be expected and encouraged. A requirement of insurance on the other hand is not a provision for safe driving or road-worthiness and it does not increase safety in any way shape or form. In fact, it is more likely to do the opposite providing a false sense of security that does not actually exist subversively causing some drivers to potentially take more risks. This is a reality check not a point to be argued. It may or may not serve the public good to enlist governmental law to require auto insurance; that is very definitely up for a debate that will not be answered or argued here. Financially however, the accounting ledger clearly shows societal financial drain regarding accidents of nearly 200% compared to what it would be without insurance providers. This means that our accidents actually cost society twice as much with no gain in safety under current law. The offset is substantial in the peace of mind for those who can budget it in easily and important business opportunities for investors and big money economy that are a sure thing as long as the government enforces this form of pseudo-protectionism through the use of implied force and power. On the other hand, the loss and burden is incurred by the poor or less fortunate in missed work opportunity, impossible schedules, loss of distant relationships, bankrupt farms, or arrest and conviction. The ones who cannot pinch the budget sufficiently suffer wrongfully with their guaranteed privileges abridged or revoked while an overall financial drain disproportionately weakens and small local economies who see billions lost annually above and beyond the cost of accidents.

If a citizen of the United States of America has found solid financial opportunities, or if they have inherited them, the legal requirement of insurance for all drivers gives them comfort and peace of mine with very little inconvenience, while it may also actually net them more than they pay through investments in the industry. If on the other hand a citizen of the United States of America has not yet found sufficient financial opportunities and they have not inherited resources, what stop-gate will our nation put on their ambition and drive to make something of their life? Perhaps the answer is: ‘whatever the powerful forces of that society will push through for the benefit of their class.’ However, thankfully, there is a stop-gate on the powerful forces of society that upholds the rights and opportunities to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those with a less powerful voice. It is the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. By legal precedent, any law passed in any time—perhaps when ‘ignorance is bliss’ or there is a dearth of ideals and wisdom—that infringes upon the rights of any, even the least powerful or significant, is to be considered as no law at all ( In such, all levels of society from the citizenry to law enforcement to the courts must legally refrain from infringement of personal rights and privileges with this basic obligation superseding any and all enforcement of law barring an official declaration of Martial Law/emergency status. Thus ‘civil disobedience’ is a legal action that should be common to all walks of life in free society. It is a relevant and wholly lawful response to pervasive insurance requirements. It is the most straightforward and simple everyday grassroots lawful and peaceful action to combat mistaken governance and it is an avenue to showcase and uphold the supreme law of the land and its contained rights and privileges while preventing the slow and steady demise of the nation due to inept lawmakers of any one time or any certain age-of-ignorance.

Let every officer of peace-and-law know first the supreme-law-of-the-land, and understand the subjugation of all contrived or thereafter agreed upon periphery laws under such, as potentially flawed. Let them exercise the utmost care that no action of theirs enforces a non-law upon any citizen within their charge. For not being under military code or law, the responsibility to avoid wrongful enforcement/infringement is not on the common citizen and not primarily on the jurisdiction, but on any individual capable of legal force starting in courtyard, field, or street.  Such access to force of power is both a necessity and a danger to society and therefore a full and complete liability is laid upon those entrusted with it. If one wrongfully diminishes or restricts the clear constitutional rights of any, causing any citizen, resident, or visitor to suffer loss or significant inconvenience, the process of retort needs to begin at the point of enforcement and on the very person wrongfully using force or power. Since no officer is under military law, they are personally liable in their person to the public for damages, and no contrivance of law can legally shield them from such. Accountability is rightfully much greater for those serving the public, and retort in the absence of care and due diligence should never be encumbered. The non-official can be forgiven most errors as they are in relaxed fashion, untrained and un-commissioned; but those wielding power in official capacity must be held to full account.

To summarize the implied conclusions: It is wrong and illegal to forcefully require Insurance on those who either feel they cannot afford it or those who conscientiously object to it. The existence of current recognition of the law as valid does not establish the law as enforceable if it is unconstitutional. Enforcement decisions currently begin on the street resulting in the action and decisions of the police officer faced with any driver who claims hardship or conscience as a reason for not carrying auto insurance. There can be no reasonable justification made linking it insurance to public safety, so considering the potential effect on an individual; it is a difficult but reasonable position to put an officer in. If he acts on the law as written in the state codes, he potentially breaks higher federal laws and brings a harsh liability upon his person for which retort can be demanded in court. Regarding the conversion of property or person in any form through exercise of imbued authority: Liability is incurred fully by the officer in any case of enforcement contrary to rights and privileges. Conversion of property or person could be, but is not limited to, the use of authority to forbid the use of the vehicle or roadway or the demand that the individual not drive until fully insured. Again, the offending officer is rightfully liable for any loss, financial or otherwise, suffered as a result of overstep of rights and privileges which they have personally committed, until such a time as remedy is established by the courts. Additionally, it is clearly not the responsibility of the common citizen to challenge or overturn any law, even when under the threat of conviction. It is necessary to live within the constraints of normal rights and privileges and thankfully in this case, they are mostly iterated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If confronted and mistreated for the legal disregard of unjust law, it is often best to show a temporary deference to authority, while it is important also for the officers sake, to try as simply and humbly as possible to explain your choice of financial necessity or conscience. Judicial channels are to establish the violation of your rights and privilege and identify and clarify the extent of your right to demand retort. An equitable judiciary must uphold that the law was invalid and illegal toward the individual since rights and privileges are abridged by it and full and sufficient retort should be granted by those who forced it thereby effecting suffering on such a one. Conversely, it is the responsibility of legislative bodies and enforcement to diligently test and remove such laws before they injure or impair any citizen right. When law is used contrary to rights and privileges and causes harm or loss, everyone from law enforcement to courts to legislative bodies are rightfully liable. Public servants may receive high salaries and a feeling of clout, but it is not without cost. No legitimate authority exists in free society without a corresponding relevant degree of responsibility and therefore liability.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s