That is another loophole question that I have pondered. Here is what I reasoned:
I do not like LEO, they are nothing more than extortionists and will create/abandon any statute/ordinance they choose at the expense of innocents.
If one owns a vehicle, it is advantageous to carry insurance in the event of a catastrophe, 1. so that if I or my property is harmed I am able to recuperate my loss(es), 2. pay the deducible and the person responsible doesn't have to worry so much about losing everything in order to make things square for me. 3. If one chooses not to travel by motor carriage, there is no obligation to carry insurance, unless he/she decides to rent, in which case insurance can be purchased through the rental agency.
Of course if one is wealthy enough (Agorist theory), they may choose not to purchase insurance at all, but must weigh those options if/when faced in claims court.
It is a contractual agreement which fits within Free Market principles. Government extortion to ticket, fine or suspend to fund the state, even if no harm has been done (in the case of speeding or a U-turn when conditions permit) is not.
Without government interference and lobbyists, the Free Market would sort the "monopolies" out.
Whachya think?
Connect With Us