Personal Freedoms versus Financial Penalties

[RWK]

The ongoing “click-it or ticket” seatbelt enforcement debate – as well as numerous other threads re individual liberties versus government encroachment – impels me to ask a related question regarding personal liberties versus personal wealth. First, let me stress my absolute belief in individual freedom; as both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson indicated, “The government that governs least, governs best”.

However, what are your views re personal liberty versus personal wealth? More specifically, if your freedom involuntarily costs me money (higher taxes, greater insurance premiums, increased product costs, unnecessary living expenses, and so forth) is that fair and, if not, how should I achieve redress?

To illustrate, I have long held that wearing a motorcycle helmet is an individual decision. But if one fails to wear a helmet and he is severely injured, it is quite likely that I will be compelled to pay for his freedom (Medicaid, additional health insurance premiums, and welfare for the long-term disabled are “tip of the iceberg” examples of this paradigm).

Therefore, what mechanisms and polices seem sensible to: (a) maximize personal freedom, without (b) involuntarily transferring the costs of that freedom to individuals who opt to be more prudent, more fiscally secure, and so forth?

 

[Kamicosmos]

All that would be required is a major overhaul of the US sytems of Legal Action, Insurance, and Medical Care/Welfare.

I always hated that my car insurance kept going up, even though I had a perfect driving record. Agent's answer was always That Car's national rate is going up. Didn't matter that it was a Vokswagen Rabbit, or a Trans Am, I always got the answer of The National Rate.

Last I checked, I drove my car, not the Nation. :barf:

 

[Sir William]

You want high fiscal costs? Taxes, surcharges and ridiculous fees? Move to Hawaii. The tsunamis caused lumber prices to go up, the hurricanes caused lumber prices to go up, fuel costs caused lumber prices to go up and I was not there. My wallet got hit though. The numbers for rehabilitation and treatment are one thing to question. Why do we pay for others stupidity?

 

[XavierBreath]

Therefore, what mechanisms and polices seem sensible to: (a) maximize personal freedom, without (b) involuntarily transferring the costs of that freedom to individuals who opt to be more prudent, more fiscally secure, and so forth?

I think the problem is that insurance companies are allowed to set policy prices based on statistics. Why do they do this? Because people will pay for the policy. When enough people refuse to pay for a policy, the insurance companies lobby to enact legislation to make not having insurance a crime.

The other problem is the welfare state of social security, medicare and medicaid. I believe that this nanny state mentality we live in began with the belief and acceptance that the state is responsible for our elderly and infirm. Individual freedom cannot be attained without acceptance of the responsibility for future illness and catastrophes.

 

[jefnvk]

I'm gonna have to go with kami in this one, for the medicare type stuff.

As for insurance, I think that if the government requires it, there oughta be strict regulations on the rates. And your rates definitely should not go up because they had to pay a claim on some idiot who trashed his new sports car.

 

[Eghad]

national rate? My car insurance is with USAA. My rate is based on where I live and the annual mileage I drive plus the statistics for the type of vehicle I drive....I know that a person in the county next to me pays slightly higher than what I pay. USAA is pretty good Insurance for military members and thier families.

 

[tyme]

However, what are your views re personal liberty versus personal wealth? More specifically, if your freedom involuntarily costs me money (higher taxes, greater insurance premiums, increased product costs, unnecessary living expenses, and so forth) is that fair and, if not, how should I achieve redress?

This is silly.

Is it unfair when, in an auction, someone else is bidding on an item you want and you end up paying twice what you would otherwise?

Is it unfair that I can't get a product for $X because demand allows the seller to set the price at $X*2?

Other people's decisions cost you money all the time. Your question creates a distinction that has no basis in reality.

It sounds like you think people have some right to reasonably-priced health insurance. If that's the case, the only way to ensure that is to have government-subsidized healthcare and tax citizens for the cost. That has the undesirable effect of limiting compensation for excellent doctors, which will cause smart people to do other things with their lives. As a result, healthcare suffers even while everyone has a "right to healthcare."

You can have great healthcare or you can mandate cheap healthcare costs (government-funded healthcare is nearly the same thing), but not both.

First, let me stress my absolute belief in individual freedom; as both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson indicated, “The government that governs least, governs best”.

If you really believe that, you're an anarchist. No government is least.