Is forcing people to have car insurance (just liability for if they cause damage to someone else) a violation of the...

Is forcing people to have car insurance (just liability for if they cause damage to someone else) a violation of the NAP? Is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to buy insurance worse than getting into a wreck and not paying to fix the damage you caused to other people's property?

Driving on roads is not a natural right that is being taken away from you if you are uninsured. The likely loss of property or capital if someone without insurance wrecks your car is a greater violation. NAP has to work on balance like any concept of rights.

>Driving on roads is not a natural right that is being taken away from you if you are uninsured.

The government has a monopoly on public right-of-way and by extension the freedom of movement.

>work 3 years
>Walking, taking bus, riding bike
>Miserable
>finally can afford car
>Someone totals your car
>other person can't pay to fix your car
>You're back to riding bus with Larry the smelly hippie

Sue them into oblivion?

WTF i hate libertarianism now

Insurance is a must and should be required by law.

If you act like a nigger on the road and you total somebody's car or injure someone, somebody has to pay for it.

Also, driving is a privilege, not a right. You are more than welcome to walk to work if having to pay for liability protection is too much to handle.

Driving is not a privilege. The only reason the state can compel you to get a license or registration or insurance is because the state owns your car; you merely hold custodial title to it.

Were you to own your car, you would not be bound by any of this. But go ahead and just try getting a hold of the Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin.

>somebody has to pay for it
>pay for it
Sounds like a job for Small Claims court

>driving the vehicular jew

Can't take what they don't have.

>be AnCap
>don't realize the state is the natural extension of capitalism

>They can take as long as they want to pay you back.
While you need the car in a couple weeks tops.

Someone can have property and have requirements for you to be on that property. This is normal for any sort of agreement. The same reason why you might have reasonable expectations that their roads would be safe and in good condition--and further--that they aren't letting hazardous people (aka drunk drivers) on the road with you. It's a two-way street.

>Driving is not a privilege

It is. There is no "right to drive a car" anywhere in the constitution and how you drive has consequences.

You're also driving on public roads that are built and maintained by the government. Follow their rules or ride your bike, hippie.

>be statist
>don't realize that the government is just the mafia taking a cut

So you are not only ignorant of the relevant laws but also the very nature of the constitution itself.

Would you like to go for a third strike?

also keep your equipment up to date! an niggers wonder why they get pulled over all the time. im always seeing busted out tail lights, mirrors, headlights...if your too broke to buy a new car, get something thats not shitty and used. a 10 year old corolla is like 5k max.

>So you are not only ignorant of the relevant laws but also the very nature of the constitution itself.


Oh really?

Care to explain how I am wrong?

...

...

...

...

The Bill of Rights merely specifies limits on the power of the government; it does not grant rights. That's why there is no such thing as "right to drive" or "right to walk" or "gay rights" or any such nonsense.

I already explained the difference between owning your car and holding custodial title to it.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Alright, well you're still driving on roads built by the state.

The government can't tell you you're not allowed to own a car, but if you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the law.

>etc
Is this what passes as "humour" in the leafland?

How does a Judeo-Liberterian society deal with a viral outbreak?

You can drive on public roads in a private vehicle without breaking the law. The trick here is that the state owns both the road and the vehicle, so it gets to tell you can and can't do when you're driving what is technically a public car on a public road.