Wow. Speaking of poorly reasoned and flat out wrong, have you read your own post? Hard to pack so much wrong into one sentence. The "health insurance" sentence, if you are wondering which line of statist bullshit you are repeating without thinking.
Yawn. The need to label arguments as statist is a crutch. People like finding something to hate, and they give it fake form through loaded terms like "statist". Such nonsense. I have a spade in my garage. Calling it a spade doesn't mean that I hate it. Based on your response, it looks like I got your name right too...
A name is an implicit reference to an internal ideal (in the Platonic sense). That reference may be a "false form" in a philosophy class, but in the real world, most people would consider naming to be a useful tool.
From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson.
Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one? There is a reason that you don't get the point.
Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance? Or do you? In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".
Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief. Why does the family home not have insurance? Surely the owner understands that they face non-zero risks from many sources, not just your cliched redneck...
If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime? By what principle do you draw the line?
Logic always catches the unwary. If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right? The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it. Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?
May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it? I've seen this movie before. We all know how it ends.
Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?
So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid. I have insurance that protects me against criminal actions done against my self and my property. Surely you do too, if you aren't homeless. If you find that concept confusing, perhaps you can use a nearby shiny surface to locate the source of the stupid.
