How do y’all weigh in on the topic of mandatory car insurance? What do you believe are the pros and cons? And if you’re opposed, what assurance can you give to those of more progressive mindsets that such would be a good idea?
Risk and Insurance: From Healthcare to Welfare (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
I have no problem with the owner(s) of a road declaring that one cannot drive on it without car insurance. So in that sense, accepting arguendo that the government legitimately owns roads, it’s within its rights to enact such a policy. My real problem is with government presuming to legitimately own roads. 
Amin. I can tell you car insurance would be mandatory on my road to be sure!
Your private road will be subject to market forces and not to your arbitrary whim. Your paying customers will ultimately decide this. Not you.
Insurance is just a tool used to handle risk.
The owner of a road may not have to ask customers to have mandatory auto insurance. The market may offer this directly to the road owner, and the costs passed onto the customers. That would seem to be the easiest way to handle it as mandating insurance by each individual motorists would be more costly to enforce.
I’d say that there’s also the potential for road owners to offer incentives to customers with discounts for having their own insurance.
Nothing is ever just “passed onto the consumers”. Consumers valuation is unaffected by your costs. The costs of insurance will be covered only if consumers value its potential benefits to be higher.
The owner of the road has options:
-
State that the road may be used at the driver’s own risk. Any liabilities would be settled on a case by case basis. Drivers pay the owner for the use of the road based on the market.
-
State that the road is covered by insurance, and the costs are included in the price of using the road. I don’t disagree that the market (i.e., the choices of individual drivers) won’t have a say.
-
State that the road is covered by insurance, costs are included in the price of using the road, and that this extra cost is deducted if the driver has their own insurance. Market still decides.
-
State that the road may be used only by drivers who have insurance. Enforcement costs would exist. Market still decides.
Personally I think #1 and #3 are the most advantageous, although there’s no way to predict whether this will be the case. #3 relates to the existence of insurance, which was the topic. #1 relates to no insurance. In all cases, drivers will be held liable for their actions. Insurance just addresses their risk.
Other factors may be in how the road owner operates his road. If his road is safe, then people may value the lower costs of having to pay no insurance versus paying for the coverage. Other road owners and their operations are a factor. Drivers may opt to carry their own insurance because while the owner of one road may be very good at minimizing risk, other road owners may be terrible at it.
Those who can afford to cover the cost of their own liabilities probably won’t need insurance (although the wealthier people tend to carry insurance in order to protect their wealth).
I think it’s also possible for road owners to find other means of financing their operations other than tolls. The road owner may get money from advertising deals. He may have restaurants or service stations along his road. He may get money from local businesses who benefit from the traffic. He may get the bulk of his revenue from commercial truckers and allow others to travel freely.
But they do. Drivers can patronize those roads that are not covered by insurance. Drivers can also drive less and seek alternative means of transportation. The point is that if those scarce resources utilized for insuring the road are demanded more urgently elsewhere, it will not be as profitable (or profitable at all) for the owner to insure his road. There is no way to get around this. The consumer is the ultimate boss. You will not compel him to do anything. He will compel you.
Think the treble negative confused my meaning.
Restate: “I agree that the market will have a say.”
Roads are an interesting case. They are scarce, depending on area. They are high capital investments. And they seem to be heavily in demand. Drivers, the consumers, have the ultimate say in which roads will be successful or not, which roads might necessitate insurance and which roads might not. Overall I can foresee an association of road owners rather than a single owner, but it will still come down to the consumer.
Come up with a flying car and roads may just be unnecessary.
Privatizing the roads is a new idea to me. It seems a little iffy though (though, to be fair, pretty much everything laissez faire does until you get down to the nitty gritty.) Any particular reading I should look into on the subject?
Why does it seem “a little iffy” to you?
I heartily recommend reading this.
It just seems like it would be very difficult to implement. And I’m guessing there’d be a wide number of toll booths on the roads. I will begin reading the link you posted ASAP though. Thank you. 
Implementing a central taxing and regulatory authority to fund, build and maintain roads is difficult too. But the state has done it.
Sure, it might be difficult to implement right now. But does that mean one shouldn’t support it?
QFT.