Car insurance

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Car insurance

Post by editor »

Mandatory Liability Insurance for a Car?

We all know that cars must be regulated, and insured, right? After all, they are big heavy chunks of metal, flying down the road at fast speeds. Cars are dangerous, and we need protection from them.

Ever skeptical, I decided to test this theory. I stood in front of my car, and asked it to try and hit me. I was surprised when the car ignored my request; I've always suspected it secretly doesn't like me. Then I realized the keys were in my pocket. Perhaps I should start the car? So I did, and tried again. The car just sat there. Inspired by a sudden idea, I ordered the car to run me down, immediately, where I stood. It was a risky move. The car, after all, is mine; it must do what I say. Nothing. Disillusioned now, I begged; I pleaded. Finally I concluded the car would do nothing without me, or someone, behind the wheel.

To the best of my knowledge, every State in the united States of America now mandates that if we drive a car on the public roads, that car must be insured against personal liability and property damage. Insurance companies are heavily regulated (perhaps they too are dangerous?), and offer their policies within the strict guidelines placed upon them by government. I have it on good authority that insurance executives wrote those guidelines, but legislatures across the country must have liked them (please don't throw me in the briar patch!).

This means your car is probably insured. If it runs out and injures someone, or damages property, then (it?) you are covered. Right? Well, not exactly.

If I am out driving my car, and it breaks down, I can call the AAA motor club, and they will provide me with road service at no additional charge over and above my membership (or premium). They will tow the car, fix a flat, jump the battery; any number of things. If I need a new tire I'll have to pay for it, but the service is free. If I am a passenger in my friend's car, and he has a flat, I can call my AAA motor club and get exactly the same service. Even though it's not my car.

Insurance policies are different. They require us to name the people who will drive our car. We pay an additional charge for each name we add to the list. If there is an accident, and someone was driving who is not on the list, the insurance company will not pay. Wait a minute-- if it's the car that's insured, what difference does it make who's driving? It matters, because that's what the policy says.

If you have more than one car, you must insure them all. When was the last time you tried to drive more than one car at the same time?

Let's say you have two cars, both insured, and you are the only one who drives them. While you are driving the first, the insurance company is at-risk that you... uh, sorry, the car will hurt someone or break something. All the while, your second car is sitting at home, minding its own business, oblivious that it is insured against the impossible-- causing a damage or injury with no one behind the wheel. You pay the insurance company for this service, during which time their risk is zero. The insurance company makes twice the money for half the risk. Pretty good odds, huh?

If you have an accident while you are out in your first car, the insurance company will pay according to the policy. Later, when your premium cost inevitably goes up because of the accident, you will only be paying more for your first car, right? The one involved in the accident? No. We all know your premium will go up for all the cars you own and have insured.

So what is really insured, the car, or you?

All evidence points to it: insurance policies really insure people, not cars. Then why must we buy insurance for every car we own, when we can only drive one at a time?

Money. That, and the fact that we've all been gullible enough to do it. Not only that, we've been gullible enough to allow the law to force us to do it. We are victims of criminal fraud.

A more honest system would be to insure the person (man, woman, corporate entity), regardless of what car he is driving. The insurance company would still get to spread their risk, as there would be plenty of times when several people, all with their own insurance, would be riding as passengers in someone else's car. This way, liability would be placed where it should be-- with the driver.

Policies could still be purchased for cars, if the owner desired, for replacement value, or liability from equipment failure. Premiums would likely be much lower.

Freedom to Contract

Mandatory insurance conveniently ignores a man's free right to contract. In the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the united States of America, it says in part,

"No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."

The right to contract is identical with the right to not contract. Whenever someone says I "must sign here", my first instinct is to say "If I must sign, then why do you need my signature? Just do to me whatever you think you can do, but let's not pretend I agree to this."


As I've already outlined above, the insurance companies are conspirators in criminal fraud. Mandating we buy their product is no different than forcing us to participate in organized crime. It's a protection racket. But there are more important issues at stake.

We are forced to purchase insurance if we want to operate a car on the public roads. If we are found to be traveling without insurance, we will be fined, and if we don't pay the fine we will go to jail. But what if we have a claim, and the insurance company is unable to pay? Are they fined? Do their stockholders go to jail? No, instead they are offered protection under the Federal Bankruptcy laws. In such circumstances, policy holders with claims may be paid pennies on the dollar, or not at all.

I once knew a man who had been ticketed for no insurance. He made an offer to the judge:

"Your honor, I hereby offer to purchase insurance as you have directed, on the condition that you will personally indemnify me against the full amount of the policy, in the event I have a claim, and the insurance company should default on their obligations."

After thinking on it a bit, the judge dismissed the case. This was a few years ago, and your mileage may vary.


Speaking of years ago, from the very beginning in this country, common rights-of-way have been provided for the purpose of freedom of travel. It was recognized that people must have food and other supplies, and must have a means of earning a living. Therefore they must be able to travel. To deprive them of the right to travel is to take their livelihood, and even their lives.

At the time, most people lived closer to trade centers, blacksmiths, and other tradesmen, simply because travel was more difficult. But even then, stealing a man's horse was a crime often punishable by death. This was no arbitrary punishment. It was well recognized that without his horse, a man might not be able to travel to where he could obtain food, shelter, and security. A man could die without his horse, so the punishment fit the crime.

These days, principally because of the automobile, people have spread out. Although thanks to the automobile people spend less time traveling than in the past, still, they must travel farther distances to get what they need. Take away a man's car, or his right to use it, and you take away his ability to hold down a job. He can't get to a grocery store to buy food, even if he had money, which he doesn't because he has no work. Without money he will soon lose his shelter, and everything that goes with it.

When government requires a man to have a license to travel; pay a fee for the priviledge; registers and taxes his means of travel, and forces him to contract with others against his will-- or else to give up his right to travel-- then that government has seized that man's very life. That government now controls whether the man prospers, or fails; lives, or dies. If they do it to one man, it amounts to murder. And if they do it to all their citizen / subjects? Call it genocide, because that's what it is. Such a government is no better than a horsethief, and deserves the same end.

In Conclusion

I would have no problem with insurance companies, if they would return to honest business practices.

Like it or not, a man has the God-given right of self-determination. He cannot be lawfully forced to purchase insurance. He has the right to refuse. That is not to say he has the right to damage others without compensation. If he does not choose to purchase insurance, then he puts all his property, and even his freedom at risk. I'll be happy to expound on this at a later date.

America has now handed their healthcare system over to these same petty criminals. The result will be higher prices, and scarcity of services. People, on the average, will get less healthcare not more; worse treatment not better. In open discussions between government and insurance executives, they have already begun discussing death panels. Call it genocide, because that's what it is.

Americans are becoming professional victims, and it will only get worse until they learn to stand up. Are you ready to stand up yet?
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:08 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by wireworks »

Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by scott »

Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in man.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by editor »

When I was writing the lead article on this topic, I wrote it inside the Forum editor. It took me probably an hour to get it all the way I wanted it, and when I hit Submit I found I had already timed out. I lost the whole article, and had to write it a second time. Let that be a caution to the rest of you.

In the second writing, I forgot to add something in the beginning.

What prompted me to write the article was a correspondence I had with a man named Will, who is probably an insurance salesman. He has written an article called The Perks and Pitfalls of Car Insurance Add-ons
( ... ce-add-ons )
and wants me to link to it. I followed the link, and it is innocent enough. I didn't get any popups or weirdness.

The article has a few good bits of information that everyone should know, but probably lots of people don't. So I don't mind the link, so long as you know I did not follow any further links to products, and I have no opinion as to endorsement of any company or products which might be offered there.

As to the popup issue, I should note that I run Firefox under Linux, and have AdBlocker Plus installed, so your experience might not be the same as mine. If you follow the link and get weirdness, please let me know and I'll remove the link.

Will, if you are an insurance salesman, you probably aren't thrilled with my article. But you can doubtless see my point. So tell us, do you know any insurance company that will offer the sort of policy I described?
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:14 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by Jcirci621 »

Totally agree mate and you said it all. I been thinking the same and good to see that this points out all of that. ;) I'm looking around since I'm new to the forum.
insurance bronx offer the best coverage
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:15 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Car insurance

Post by Y.O.G. »

by scott » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:04 pm
Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in man.
Well said.
But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Phil.4:19

We as followers of the Way (not the cult) should have nothing whatsoever to do with surety, one of the three major tools the buggers use to enslave His people. The others of course being usury and debt, all there to usurp our need to trust in our heavenly Father for everything, who said His burden is light.

If He created everything into existence, and He did, how on earth can we not believe He can maintain that existence in His people?

Insurance is nothing more than a tontine scam
Yahweh's Occupational Government

2nd Chronicles 7:14
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by wmdcrain »

A judicial command or precept issued by a court or magitrate, directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence or decree.Mandatum or commission, contracts. Some define a mandate to be a bailment of goods without reward, to be carried from place to place, or to have some act performed about them. This seems more properly an enumeration of the various sorts of mandates than a definition of the contract. According to Mr. Justice Story, it is a bailment of personal property, in regard to which the bailee engages to do some act without reward. Others define it to be when one undertakes, without recompense, to do some act for the other in respect to the thing bailed.From the very term of the definition, three things are necessary to create a mandate. First, that there should exist something which should be the matter of the contract; secondly, that it should be done gratuitously; and thirdly, that the parties. should voluntarily intend to enter into the contract.There is no particular form or manner of entering into the contract of mandate, prescribed either by the common law, or by the civil law, in order to give it validity. It may be verbal or in writing; it may be express or implied it may be in solemn form or in any other manner The contract may be varied at the pleasure of the parties. It may be absolute or conditional, general or special, temporary or permanent.

The contract of mandate may be dissolved in various ways: 1. It may be dissolved by the mandatary at any time before he has entered upon its execution; but in this case, as indeed in all others, where the contract is dissolved before the act is done which the parties intended, the property bailed is to be restored to the mandator. It may be dissolved by the death of the mandatory; for, being founded in personal confidence, it is not presumed to pass to his representatives, unless there is some special stipulation to that effect. But this principally applies to cases where the mandate remains wholly unexecuted; for if it be in part executed, there may in some cases, arise a personal obligation on the part of the representatives to complete it.Whenever the trust is of a nature which requires united, advice, confidence and skill of all, and is deemed a joint personal trust to all, the death of one joint mandatary dissolves the contract as to all.The death of the mandator, in like manner, puts an end to the contract. But although an unexecuted mandate ceases with the death of the mandator, yet, if it be executed in part at that time, it is binding to that extent, and his representatives must indemnify the mandatory.The contract of mandate may be dissolved by a change in the state of the parties; as if either party becomes insane, or, being a woman, marries before the execution of the mandate.It may be dissolved by a revocation of the authority, either by operation of law, or by the act of the mandator.It ceases by operation of law when the power of the mandator ceases over the subject-matter; as, if he be a guardian, it ceases, as to his ward's property, by the termination of the guardianship.So, if the mandator sells the property, it ceases upon the sale, if it be made known to the mandatory. By the civil law the contract of mandate ceases by the revocation of the authority.

At common law, the party giving an authority is generally entitled to revoke it. But, if it be given as a part of a security, as if a letter of attorney be given to collect a debt, as a security for money advanced, it is irrevocable by the party, although revoked by death.Roman law. Mandates were the instructions which the emperor addressed to public functionaries, which were to serve as rules for their conduct. 2. These mandates resembled those of the pro-consuls, the mandata jurisdictio, and were ordinarily binding on the legates or lieutenants of the emperor of the imperial provinces, and, there they had the authority of the principal edicts.

Policy Number: XXXX
Service Request: Payment Confirmation
Policy Type: Auto - Private Passenger Voluntary
Status: Payment Processed
I just got this in an email, the policy VOLUNTARY...hummm....
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by wmdcrain »

I use Linux, Mepis 11, google chrome browser, ad block, and have search set with

Now back to the subject, I contend that insurance companies are in league with the courts, get a ticket dismissed, your rates go up anyway. If the states mandate insurance, it should be provided, it could be, by adding the cost of insurance to the price of gas. The way it is now set up, how can a state order a man/woman to get private insurance? where is there chain of authority over men who created them, the creature created, can not have more power than the creator. it appears to me that the states have become private corporations.

Clearfield Doctrine ... ge=english

"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation,
and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where
private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and
securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit,
such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities
entirely separate from government." -

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private
commercial paper is used by corporate government, then
Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
different than a mere private corporation.

As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
performance are made.

And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the
Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the
Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under
"Public Law", which was in consonance with the CONstitution,
to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes
of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by iamfreeru2 »

Does man, made in the image of YHWH, have anything to do with man's statutes, traffic or otherwise? If not, then why do we, as men of God, keep aswandering (see Ashwander/Brandeis rules) ourselves by availing ourselves of the benefits of man's statutes. God tells us to obey Him, not man (See Leviticus 18:4,5, 19:3, Acts 5:29 among others).
I am called Michael, a bond servant of the Chirst
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by editor »

I appreciate wmdcrain's post on the Clearfield Doctrine. It reinforces old commonlaw principles such as Quo Warranto (Where is your authority?). People tend to give too much credence to so-called authority. Most will not even question their doctors, but just blindly follow their advice.

When I was younger I used to think I had a problem with authority. Now I know enough to give genuine authority its due, but to always question unrighteous dominion.

The Clearfield Doctrine tells us it is the contracts with which we continually enter into with government which get us into trouble. No contract, no authority.
Post Reply