At 08:52 AM 03/10/2003 -0500, david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you [whoever that was?] wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote:
> > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any
> > other individual to subsidize your welfare.
> >
> > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity,
> > would violate fourth amendment protections against
> > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do
> > the same thing.
>
> But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device
> in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the
> police or just the insurance company) ?
>
> Right ?
I wouldn't mind if some insurance companies required that,
as long as any laws against annoying the police with bogus complaints
didn't affect me. In particular, if the "Bad Drivers' Insurance Company"
wanted to offer them with a special rate to people who might otherwise not
be able to get insurance because of previous drunkenness, great.
That level of market differentiation is unlikely to become available
in most of the US, because states tend to "protect" consumers by
regulating what kind of insurance is available and at what prices, though.
I'd mind substantially if _my_ insurance company required it,
because I've been fairly satisfied with the service and prices I get from them,
and I'd have to go find a new company that wasn't blazingly stupid.
I'd mind a lot if the government required insurance companies to use them,
and required every driver or car owner to use one of those insurance companies,
especially if drivers were still responsible if their machines
made incorrect calls to the police.
