The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Next year sees the 800th anniversary of one of the most important events in English, and arguably world, history - the signing of the Magna Carta. This document, an original copy of which has just gone on display in Washington D.C., has influenced laws and rights all over the world and was, for example, one of the chief inspirations for the American Declaration of Independence.
.
Amongst the gems contained therein are the following lovely nuggets:
.
39 - No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him or send upon him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
.
40 - To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
.
45 - We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
.
Which are good. It's far from a perfect document by today's standards, as adequately illustrated by the following clause:
.
54 - No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.
.
Despite its many flaws and contemporary irrelevances, the Magna Carta is still a cornerstone of law and rights in this country and I wonder if the modern media will put as much enthusiasm into celebrating this 800th anniversary as they are putting into celebrating a century old slaughter.
.
Somehow, I doubt it.

[Proudhuff]

Doesn't apply in Scotland.

Looks like TLS isn't alone:

http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/roundup/articles/2012/02/02/423124-tarot-reader-finally-accepts-court-authority?do=mobilesite&mode=on

[TordelBack]

"Everything I do is sort of metaphysical"

Tell me about it, sister.

[The Legendary Shark]

An intriguing article. I think that where she went wrong was in trying to play it both ways. She tried to deny the authority of the "court" over her and yet entered "Not Guilty" pleas. You can't do both. Imagine the whole "court" process (and in this instance the process was not a trial by jury but an administrative hearing - if I've read it correctly) as a game of Monopoly in which your plea is your token (top hat, little dog, battleship, etc.). As soon as you enter a plea, you're playing the game whether you know it or not. It seems like this lady was coerced into entering pleas through imprisonment - with which I can empathise.
.
Let's have a look at what's going on here.
.
First, the government decides to make it a "crime" to drive without insurance. Dressing-up their decision in all the correct words and phrases, stitched together with all the sound and practical benefits that insurance brings, legislation is passed. The government has just told you to spend your money on something IT thinks YOU must have. The government does not offer a cheap public alternative but gives the job (cash cow) over entirely to its friends and allies in the private sector. The government will take its own cut through fines on the uninsured enforced by officers.
.
So, now the system is in place; pay up, risk fines and imprisonment or don't drive. Isn't this exactly the same as a protection racket?
.
As for insurance itself, I don't think it's a particularly good or bad thing but mandatory anything is generally evil. Consider, two drivers of the same age, gender and experience, both good drivers with clean records and pointless licenses but, for whatever reason, one insured and one not.
.
Scenario A: Bad accident. The two drivers above are both injured, both cars are written off. Both drivers are treated by the NHS, although the insured driver may have the option of private care. The insured driver will have his car replaced, the uninsured driver will have to replace his own. The insured driver may receive an income during his recuperation, the uninsured driver will have state assistance. In the case of permanent disability or death, the insured driver's family might receive a large financial recompense, the uninsured driver's family would not. (There would, of course, be investigations, hearings and if necessary a trial - I'm just concentrating on the idea of insurance here.)
.
Scenario B: Fender bender. The insured driver has the headache of putting his garage in touch with his insurance company whilst the uninsured driver has the headache of finding the money for repairs himself. In the case of one driver being lawfully at fault the two headaches are essentially the same but doubled.
.
Scenario C: Third Party. Our drivers run somebody over. The victim may be cared for privately or by the state (much as in Scenario A). If appropriate, compensation may be claimed from the insurance company or the uninsured driver directly.
.
To make insurance mandatory is a nonsense but we've all been brainwashed by popular culture into the belief, a belief verging on blind superstition, that mandatory insurance is not only practically desirable but also morally vital.
.
It is the same with licenses, permits and taxation - you can pay up, risk imprisonment or not buy anything. Once again, we have been conned into seeing the paying of taxes as a not only necessary but moral act. "I am a taxpayer," is said proudly by many - and each and every one of them would pay less tax if they could. And to stand up and say "I am not a taxpayer" is to invite imprisonment and ruin.
.
If insurance and taxation are so obviously and fundamentally morally right, why are they mandatory? Why does not HMRC request instead of demanding? Why cannot they say "we'd like you to contribute £X" and why cannot you say "no, I will contribute £Y" - which might be more or less depending on whichever factors you decide are relevant? To say "I am a taxpayer" under those conditions might mean something.
.
Right now, when you say "I am a tax payer" you're really only saying "here - take my money, just please don't hurt me!"
.
That lady should be applauded for speaking up - for asking questions of those who claim to be her superiors and for asserting her own innate lawful powers. Who are they, these people, who tell us we must have this and we need to have that? Who are they, these people who claim to have first dibs on our earnings and hold themselves as the ultimate arbiters of we can and cannot have? Who are they, these people who think they know and are worth more than us?
.
I'll tell you who they are - they're nobodies - people of infinitely less worth than the lady in the article and of infinitely less worth than you.
.
You are the power base. Never forget that.

[I, Cosh]

Next year sees the 800th anniversary of one of the most important events in English, and arguably world, history - the signing of the Magna Carta.

Blimey. Pretty surprised to see you championing something whose only purpose was to enshrine in law the privilege of a wealthy few.

[The Legendary Shark]

The seeds of Freedom are scattered in amongst many weeds and briars. If freedom must begin at the "top" then so be it - the important thing is that it begins so the rest of us can spread it.
.
For instance (and I haven't researched this so it's only conjecture), that clause about not imprisoning people on the word of a woman except in the event of her husband's murder, though it seems barbaric now, might have been the first great leap forward in women's rights. Before that, a wife might watch her husband murdered for his land before her very eyes and be unable to testify, leaving her destitute. It is, granted, a very niggardly concession but it is a concession - it's a start, anyway.
.
Many good things come from questionable places just as many questionable things come from good places. The hard part, as ever, is sorting the one from the other - in which endeavour I count myself a determined amateur.

[Banners]

If someone doesn't have car insurance it's likely because they say they can't afford it. If that's the case, the likelihood of them being able to fund compensation to an innocent third-party is probably zero. It's about taking responsibility.

Why should we (ie. we as a group of people sharing the same space) allow someone to drive a potentially deadly machine if they're not able to demonstrate some degree of responsibility, or if they lack the means of being able to make amends if the worst should happen?

[Dudley]

Scenario A: Bad accident. The two drivers above are both injured, both cars are written off. Both drivers are treated by the NHS, although the insured driver may have the option of private care. The insured driver will have his car replaced, the uninsured driver will have to replace his own. The insured driver may receive an income during his recuperation, the uninsured driver will have state assistance. In the case of permanent disability or death, the insured driver's family might receive a large financial recompense, the uninsured driver's family would not. (There would, of course, be investigations, hearings and if necessary a trial - I'm just concentrating on the idea of insurance here.)

Two drivers hit each other. Both are insured.  The insurer of the party at fault pays the costs of both cars, and then the party at fault pays that back through higher premiums etc.

Two drivers hit each other. The one at fault is not insured. The bill has to be met somehow.  The uninsured driver can be prosecuted, but may well not have the capital to cover the high costs of a road accident. Therefore the innocent party has to cover their own costs, or additional costs have to met met by the innocent taxpayer.

Scenario C: Third Party. Our drivers run somebody over. The victim may be cared for privately or by the state (much as in Scenario A). If appropriate, compensation may be claimed from the insurance company or the uninsured driver directly.

And if the uninsured driver can't pay for the very considerable costs of damage, medical treatment, etc, then the bill has to be picked up either by the person who was not at fault or by the government (i.e. the taxpayer, who also is not at fault, ends up paying out).

[The Legendary Shark]

While we're on the topic of important documents and their meanings, I came across an interesting perspective on the meaning of the American Constitution during what I laughingly call my legal researches.
.
The theory goes that the cunning is all in the preamble and that "We the People" actually means "We the Undersigned" and that the document is actually the founding charter of a corporation owned, run by and for the benefit of those original few signatories. Only the signatories are the People, everyone else is merely an employee of the corporation - a mere citizen.
.
If this is so, then the United States of America is just one huge corporately owned continent populated virtually entirely by its workers and run for the sole benefit of a very few People. Exactly what the East India company strove for.
.
Now I'm not saying this idea's right and I'm not saying its wrong but, looking at the USA, it might explain a great many things.
.
Future generations might view this document as the most effective tool of oppression ever devised, despite its ostensibly noble content, because it made slaves of almost an entire continent of people.

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't disagree with the benefits of insurance. In a perfect world, either everyone would have it or nobody would need it. What I'm disputing is the legitimacy of enforcing insurance on a society. If you're going to enforce it then "National Insurance" should mean just that - a few quid a week towards a basic public insurance system covering everything. Anyone who wants more can go to a private insurer.
.
To enforce a requirement on everyone, regardless of means, without offering an alternative is anathema in a free society. My point is that there are alternatives to "pay up or else".
.
My illustrations were in no way meant to be exhaustive and described only part of reality. Of course there will always be cases that require much more thought and consideration - I'm reminded of that old Jasper Carrot line, "I drove into a drive that wasn't mine and hit a tree I haven't got."
.

[Banners]

To enforce a requirement on everyone, regardless of means, without offering an alternative is anathema in a free society. My point is that there are alternatives to "pay up or else".

The alternative is to walk, cycle or take the bus.

[The Legendary Shark]

Thus do you willingly curtail your own freedoms, and the freedoms of your neighbours, for money.
.
And it's not even your money.

[Banners]

No. By buying car insurance I'm protecting the freedoms of my neighbours - and strangers - by ensuring that if anything happens which is my fault, they'll be taken care of (to some degree at least). It's not an ideological tenet - it's the right thing to do.

If you can't afford to buy a car and keep it safe for you and others, then tough. A car, in most cases, is a luxury not a necessity. And I do buy my car insurance with my own money. All I get from my parents is socks.

[The Legendary Shark]

I disagree. By buying car insurance you are protecting the interests of your neighbours, not their freedoms. That demonstrates responsibility on your part, which I respect.
.
But you know that if you don't buy it, or forget to renew it, you face a fine, a driving ban or even imprisonment. So the question I ask, the same as with tax, do you pay because it's morally right to do so or because you fear getting caught without it?
.
Again, if it is morally right to have insurance, why do we need enforcement? It is morally right to refrain from theft, which most of us do anyway whether there's a constable watching or not. With the responsibility to do a thing must come the freedom not to do a thing - otherwise neither freedom nor responsibility have any meaning.
.
To deny people access to private transport on purely economic grounds is an aspect of our current enslavement. I keep saying it but, in the words of the late, great Bill Hicks, "you think you're free? Try going anywhere without money and see how fuckin' free you are."
.
And I'm not going to go into the whole money thing again here - I've posted far too much already on that subject - but it most certainly is not your money. How can it be when someone else has first dibs or can demand you hand it over for going too fast?

[Banners]

Do you pay because it's morally right to do so or because you fear getting caught without it?

I pay for car insurance because it's morally right, and because it's a good product. I once had an accident in the outside lane of the M1 (it made the travel news on FiveLive) when I went into the back of holidaying Canadian family's hire car. The repairs to both cars, the money, their onward travel, their accomodation etc. got sorted with two phone calls, a letter and £250 excess. Brilliant. Essentially, by having insurance I took responsibility and made sure the family's freedom was taken care of.

If it is morally right to have insurance, why do we need enforcement?

Because a car is a dangerous machine that can kill or do serious injury. A car is not an abstract concept we can debate here – it's a tonne of steel hurtling towards my son at 70mph.

To deny people access to private transport on purely economic grounds is an aspect of our current enslavement.

People are not denied outright - no-one is saying that somebody in particular can't have a car. It's cause and effect. If you want a car, make it happen - get educated, get a job, get a loan, invest, save, speculate, work, ask your friends and family for help, borrow one, repair one.

(And then get car insurance, natch).

And I'm not going to go into the whole money thing again here - I've posted far too much already on that subject - but it most certainly is not your money. How can it be when someone else has first dibs or can demand you hand it over for going too fast?

I went on a Speed Awareness course - didn't cost me anything.

Yes, it would be brilliant if we all did things altruistically for the betterment of our fellow man. Yes, I accept that the concept of money is a form of mass hallucination. However in the specific instance of car insurance and what it costs etc., I really don't think there can be any valid argument for not having it.

To go back to where I began, if I hadn't have had car insurance when I had my crash, both myself and the Canadian family would have been fucked.