
News Link • Economic Theory
Hoisting The Black Flag
• https://www.ericpetersautos.com, By ericBy which was meant that any innocent man could be created a "criminal" – just like that – by finding or creating a "crime" and then convicting him of it. Ayn Rand had more to say about this in her writings, too.
I contemplate becoming such a "criminal." By refusing to pay the insurance mafia that the government says I must hand over money to (as much as they say) in order to avoid becoming – you guessed it – a "criminal." It being illegal to operate a vehicle on the government's roads – there are no such things as "public" roads – unless one has paid the insurance mafia to "cover" hypothetical damages one hasn't actually caused.
I've written about this latter business at length, so I will briefly make the obvious point that if it is just to force a man to pay for hypothetical damages he may cause with his vehicle then it is also just to force a man to pay for hypothetical damages his dog might cause. Also his gun, if he owns one. Anything he owns that could end up causing damage to some other person. There is no logical reason to object to such "coverage" mandates once any iteration of such "coverage" has been mandated.
So – do we accept being forced to "cover" against any hypothetical potential for damage – or just the ones that are arbitrarily decided to be the ones that must be "covered"? This being of a piece with the creating of "criminals" by arbitrarily deciding that some drugs are verboten to use, possess or sell but other drugs – some more dangerous (viz, alcohol) than the ones that can get you locked up for using/possessing/selling, such as the leaves of that dread plant, "marihuana," are perfectly legal to use/possess/sell.
In other words, there is no hard deck limit as regards the imposition of "coverage" requirements; as with drugs, it is merely a matter of arbitrary decrees. This today. That tomorrow.
This sort of thing can only be thwarted by the assertion of the principle that a man who has not caused damages ought not to be compelled to pay for "damages" that might happen. Whether by driving his car or walking his dog or carrying a gun.