>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: law enforcement for profit
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:43:08 -0400
>
>Felix Ungman wrote:
>
> > on 00-05-24 07.47, phil osborn at philosborn@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> How do you suggest conflicts between two people with different
>providers
> > >> should be solved?
> > >>
> > >> /kpj
> > >>
>_____________________________________________________________________________
> > >> __
> > > Who owns the roads??? Whoever provides the roads sets the policy re
> > > insurance - or can if they choose, and they probably will, as
>otherwise they
> > > might either find themselves stuck in ligigation or without customers.
> >
> > There are a number of different roles in this case, the drivers, the
>road
> > owners, the car owners, and the insurers of the drivers, roads and cars.
> > Each insurer sets its own policy, of course. But I think KPJ was asking
>what
> > happens in case where there are incompatible policies. One extreme
>example
> > would be if a driver who has no insurance at all is responsible for a
> > substantial amount of damage (way above what he can compensate for).
>
>Most people have clauses on their policies to cover in the event of an
>uninsured
>motorist. Here in NH its quite typical, because you are not legally
>required to have
>car insurance unless you've been in an accident with x amount of damage
>before, been
>busted for DWI. Otherwise, insurance is usually mandated by the institution
>that
>finances your vehicle purchase. If you paid cash for your car, and you have
>a clean
>record, you have no legal obligation to be insured. Because of this,
>uninsured
>motorist clauses are common, though I imagine they might not be in regions
>with no
>states that have laws similar to ours.
>
>The situation here in NH is much as I would expect in a libertarian
>society, where
>those that are insured would have clauses on their policies to cover in the
>event of
>an incident of some sort with an uninsured entity. I'm sure that in such a
>situation, like an accident the uninsured driver cannot pay for, you would
>wind up
>with the cost being financed, and a lein put on the future earnings of the
>individual. Such leins would be part of the credit record of the
>individual, and
>employers with their own insurance policies would be obligated by their
>insurance
>company to comply with garnishment orders.
>
>Any accidents where the damage exceeded the ability of an uninsured
>individual to
>pay for in their lifetime would likely be the sort of accidents that
>insurance
>companies would pay to research ways of minimizing with new technologies.
>
>Mike Lorrey
>
Yes, totally in agreement. The road owners could adopt similar policies to
encourage usage - they would assume liability, essentially, or let it be
known to their customers that they were following a policy or not requiring
insurance in the kind of cases you mention, if it turned out to make market
sense - altho see my reply for other aspects.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:45 MDT