In illinois we have state required insurance of all drivers. I am seeking some articles on how the free market would handle this better. As a lover of freedom i do dislike the idea of my state forcing this, HOWEVER, much like the smoking ban it does seem to make life better for me, that is, knowing all drivers MUST be licensed and knowing i can walk into any place of business or public space knowing idiots are finally forced not to smoke and fill ‘my air’ with puke.
thanks for any help.. truly a free market lover here…
Well in a free market, the owners of roads (whether they are locally owned by an association of the people who use them, or are for profit companies) would most likely require drivers to register with them and provide proof that they are competent (a drivers license with a third party DMV) and possibly proof of insurance if they felt that was important.
If one assumes a free market, then it is obvious that in the case of auto insurance, it would be up to owners of private property like roads and freeways whether or not all those who use their facilities must have auto insurance. As for smoking, it should be up to the owners of private property (e.g. bars, pubs, night clubs, hookah bars, cafes, restaurants, or anywhere else where one can smoke) whether or not people are allowed to smoke on their property.
Why should other people be forced to insure your property? An accident is always, well, an accident. But it is up to you as to how expensive of a vehicle you choose to drive.
And extortion makes life better for bureaucrats. What is your point?
Although it doesn’t cover Auto Insurance specifically, Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s speech at Mises University 2009 is entitled The Economics of Risk and Insurance… It covers problems with today’s insurance, and how a free market would handle it much better:
http://media.mises.org/mp3/MU2009/MU2009_Hoppe2_07-29-2009.mp3