Crooks & recourse: No state, no problems?

[learnin2]

"Being made whole is the purpose of getting insurance. The insurance company can then collect from the "perp" who doesn't want to deal honestly, injure no one and give every man his due."

By what and who's authority would they have to collect it from them? By who's authority would every man then collect his so-called(unerned)due from the insurance? Do we now have private insurance companies extorting money from people, for the benifit of others? Would this constitute free or volantary, or force? Is the insurance company now the law makers, and enforcers of their own laws?

[marc stevens]

Why are people so hooked on "authority"?

Why do you write unearned? No, insurance companies would not be "lawmakers" and imposing it on others without their consent.

This is not something I can answer completely in this forum. If the insurance company cannot collect from the individual responsible for the damage, then the insurance company has to accept the loss, paying claims is a part of doing business.

There are other things that may be done that doesn't involve coercion to provide an incentive for the "perp" to pay what is owed. One example is that if he has insurance his company may drop him or increase his rates to cover the debt (there could be a clause in the policies).

Without "states" insurance companies would be a major part of protecting life, liberty and property.

[learnin2]

If we have a total free market society, where there's no government, or government interference, would insurance companies become the new courts of arbutration? Based on the principle that no person, or group of people have any rights or authority over any other person or their property, how would someone seek recource for damages? I would say that a person can themselves TRY to seek recource, but wouldn't have any power or authority to pay someone else to do it for them.

Once someone leaves their property, they have no rights or any authority. Which might conclude that if someone doesn't own any property, they have no rights whatsoever. They might become property.
Consent? Don't we allready live in a society where the majority consents to be governed, and a minority doesn't?
I think your theory follows the same as consent to paying property taxes, for the benefit of haveing a fire department to put your house fire out. If you don't pay the tax, they are not obligated to put the fire out, or rescue anyone from the burning building, whether or not you have insurance.

[sagas4]

Learnin,

I'm Not sure the fire dept. Has any obligation anyway.

Example: My neighbor had a fire while he was away. After the Dept. Arrived 2 hours after the call; all that was left was smoldering embers we (myself, another neighbor, and his son-in-law) were putting out ourselves.

Could he sue for redress because the fire dept. did not protect his property; was it their obligation in exchange for paying of property taxes?

He did not bother to do anything of the sort because he would have been laughed out and knew it. As far as I know, he contacted the insurance company and they did perform their contractual obligation they had with him.

[marc stevens]

Thanks sagas, good points.

Learning2, no we do not live in a society where people consent to be governed. No one has the choice, you accept the "protection" and pay for it or be shot.

I always get the impression people think I am talking about some kind of utopia or otherwise perfect world. A voluntary society would not be perfect or a utopia. Will there be people who damage others and not be held responsible? Of course. But if that's a reason for not having a voluntary society, then it follows that it's also a reason to NOT have the involuntary society we have now.

Make two phone calls, one to the local police department and the other to an insurance company. Ask each one about the percentage of stolen cars that are recovered. Also, ask them how many people who had their car stolen were then compensated for their loss. Take notice of the ATTITUDE of each person you speak with.

The results would make a cool thread.

[Hairy]

Well, without yet having read today's posts, this sure looks like what I've been after.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH,
(I found out yesterday)
guess who's not paying their lawyers?

Scumbags.

[learnin2]

I agree there will be bugs to work out, but it is still a noble goal to work toward.