Government Sponsored Extortion
impounding uninsured vehicles

ere in Texas there is talk of impounding uninsured vehicles so that everyone can be forced to pay their "fair share". It's estimated that perhaps 20% of the vehicles on the road have no insurance as mandated by state law. This situation can be rectified by simply taking the malfactor's car away and making him pay up ... + a $315 fine ... + storage costs ... + the cost of insurance = ka-ching!.

My! Isn't this fair!? No one could argue with this logic.

No provision is made for how the said "malfactor" will get to work while his car is ringing up charges in the impound yard or of how he will pay all the above bills when he can't work nor is there any note made pertaining to why he can't afford insurance in the first place.

"Pay up or somethin' bad gonna' happen to you"

This is called extortion for those not in the know. It's when you threaten someone with mayhem if they don't give in to your illicit demands. In this case, the extortionist's demands are made "licit" by legal fiat ...
(hint: this is where the pol gets his taste).

The Truth ...

The politicians who are calling for this "reform" have their noses so far up the insurance company's butts that no one can tell where one's mouth begins and another's anus ends. As I've alluded to elsewhere ... the entire insurance industry is locked in a circle jerk con game with the politicians and lawyers all over the country. It's the biggest legalized con in the history of modern economics.

The reason that there are so many uninsured people driving around is that the cost of insurance is so high. In my case, it's affordable because I'm old and have no accidents ... about $500 annually. For a young guy with a family making, say, $10 per hour ... with one accident on his record ... it's probably in the neighborhood of $4000 per year. If you're only making $16000 per year (net), car insurance can eat up 25% of your income. This is more than what he would spend for food, clothing, electric combined.

And ... for what?

To feed the scam.

It works like this. The insurance companies and lawyers pay the politicians (canpaign contributions ;o) to mandate car insurance for every driver ... and to protect the trial process so that No Fault Insurance doesn't really mean "Just pay out without analyzing the accident". It's important to have trials so that the cost of insurance can be kept sky high.

High insurance rates means that the insurers get their cut off the top ... next in line are the lawyers who get their cut when they win a settlement in court ... then the pols get their cut in the form of over and under the counter campaign contributions ... AND ... the plaintiff (you) gets a taste as well in the form of the insurance settlement (typically on the order of more than your life is worth - for a sprained ankle).

This is a circle jerk of cosmic proportions.

But ... you say ... certainly the insurance companies don't want to pay big settlements! Of course they don't ... but their business is to understand statistics. In the long run all these companies get hit with an expected business expense arising from payouts. They just factor it into their costs. After all, they work like any other business and take a percentage. This means that for the same work they get more money per man hour when the payouts are bigger because it makes the price of insurance go up in lock step percentage. So, which would you rather have 10% of $1000 or 10% of $100,000 ? I rest my case.

A nail in the coffin

Of course, you are probably thinking that there is no other way ... there have always been lawsuits that drag on interminably over car accidents ... but you would be wrong. There is another way. Unfortunately it would not make them any money. It would just cause insurance rates to collapse to affordable levels.


But isn't this what we have? ............ no

What we have is a bastardized version that preserves and disguises the underlying graft ... well, just what you'd expect in a decaying civilization like America (yes, Virginia, we are on the decline). The real no-fault insurance does just what you'd think. We assume that whomever is at fault didn't do it on purpose and ... if he had it to do over ... would just as well avoid the accident. So, what we do is say ... "In the long run it doesn't matter who's fault it is, so why not cut out the middlemen (insurance companies padded bills, lawyers and pols) and just call it even and each insurance company pays for its own client".


Everyone just pays for his own vehicle and the people riding in his own car even though he might be at fault? That's correct. Like I said, he didn't intend to hit your vehicle so there is no crime ... it's called ... an ... accident.

So, the simple solution to the car insurance problem of being hit by an uninsured motorist is to buy insurance just for your own vehicle, your own property, your own passengers. The rest take their chances with the public dole, i.e. the same thing that happens now when you (as an uninsured motorist) hit another car ... except that it ends up costing much, much less to society in general. There is a smaller pie to cut up ... very much smaller.

You know that this is the right, sensible and the moral thing to do ... don't you?

But you don't want to do it because visions of sugar plums (the big cash settlement) are dancing in your head and you don't want to give up your "lottery ticket" to prosperity. There is a name for you ...


Ebtx Home Page