“Conservatives” (ironically opposed to ObamaCare mandates) call for ‘Mandatory Gun Insurance’

In General Information, Re-blogged from Flyover Press on April 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm


Remember how tighty-righties got their tighty-whities in a wedgie when the Messiah-in-Chief’s health insurance mandate was unveiled? Why, “Harrumph, harrumph…You can’t do that to our pledges, only WE can do that to our pledges.”

Eric Peters hits the nail on the head, again.

Peters’ portrayal of an ‘insurance Mafia’ is 100-percent accurate. It is why Dr. LaBaume’s assertion that the civil police function (in an anarcho-capitalist society) would be assumed by for-hire bad-guy catchers paid for with insurance premiums drew a sarcastic eye-roll from me. Once you make enforcement/policing a for-profit enterprise, you end up right where we are today. When the police can reap a financial benefit from throwing people in cages or confiscating their property, people are shocked when there is an oversupply of property-less people in cages.

That said, the problem is not a failure of anarcho-capitalism. There would be similar abuses under libertarian socialism.

The root problem is the psychotic need some people have which drives them to have an irrational desire to control others. This is why there is not one iota of difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’. The political scum at each end of the spectrum have a deep-seated need to tell others what to do. Liberalism or conservativism is only their respective, preferred mechanism with which to exercise control.

Mandatory Gun Insurance

By  via Eric Peters Automotive

It took “conservative” Republicans to trot out mandatory and market-based health insurance in the same mouthful. Don’t ever forget to thank them for this.

Well, it’s time for the next step: Mandatory gun insurance –  also “market based” and “incentivized,” of course.

Here it comes, directly from one of the insurance Mafia’s chief consiglieries, Robert Hartwig. He is president of something called the Insurance Information Institute – which is an outfit funded by the insurance Mafia for the purpose of spewing propaganda favorable to the insurance Mafia and to wheedle for more laws that extort fresh “customers” for the insurance Mafia:

Mandatory gun insurance, he says, would “. . . (cover) individuals whose person or property was in some way injured or damaged as a result of the use of a firearm.”

What Hartwig avoids mentioning is the guns that will be pointed at gun owners who decline to be “covered.”

But why would anyone decline such a valuable “service”?insurance shyster

Perhaps so that they can afford to keep the gun. Or even buy one in the first place.

And here we come to the true object of this enterprise: To make the legal ownership of guns progressively more expensive, so that within a period of years, very few people except the affluent elites (and eventually, perhaps not even they) will be able to legally own guns. No registration – or confiscation (as such) will be needed. The public – most of it – will be disarmed via being priced out of the “market” using “incentives” provided by the insurance 3

Or they will be criminalized – by the government – for not having bought the required insurance. Exactly as has been done already to car owners who fail to purchase the required insurance. And will soon be done to people who fail to purchase the required health insurance.

It’s quite brilliant, really.

The Mafia would “reward” gun owners who own fewer guns – and levy surcharges upon those who own “too many” guns – or guns deemed “too powerful” or “excessive,” such as those of a certain caliber, or which have magazines that hold “too many” bullets. Conceal carry? Higher risk – you pay more.

It will work in exactly in the same way that the insurance Mafia has made owning powerful cars and motorcycles – especially more than one – financially untenable for most average people. Gun owners who do not keep their guns stored unloaded and /or locked up – and therefore, largely useless for home defense –  will be surcharged into penury. And just as the insurance Mafia is already pushing hard for in-car monitors for drivers, so also will the insurance Mafia push for random checks or in-home monitoring for gun owners – to “make sure” the guns are “kept safe.” Either accept these terms and conditions – or give up your guns.

Or, become an outlaw – subject to potentially years in prison if they ever find out you failed to comply.

Every gun owner will be strongly “incentivized” to become a good little Clover – to do as he is told.

And most will.

Bet your bippie that Obamacare – brought to you by these same “conservative” Republicans – never forget that – will tie into this. Already, doctors are asking probing questions of their patients: Do you own a gun? The patient is Catch-22′d either way. If he says yes, the doctor – now in cahoots with the government and the insurance Mafia – will jot that information down on the patient’s files – files that are no longer private. Files that are going to be read with great interest by the government – and the insurance Mafia (which amounts to the same thing) because your “health care” is now a matter of public concern – and must be “incentivized” with “market-based” nudges – you know, orders enforced at gunpoint (the guns owned by not-you, of course).

Or, the patient lies and says 4

Now he’s probably committed some sort of actionable offense – one must always tell the truth to the government – even though the government rarely retruns the favor and is never obliged to. The patient who fibs to Uncle – his eternal in loco parentis – must live in perpetual fear of Uncle  discovering his fibbing.

Much worse – for the patient – he tells the doctor to piss off and mind his own goddamn business. Patient is belligerent and paranoid; potentially dangerous. Immediate e-mail to Homeland Security. Cue the thug scrum. (This is no exaggeration, by the way. It has already happened to several people. Their doctors narced them out to the insurance Mafia’s enforcers – you know, the police – and “for their safety,” these people’s guns were physically taken away despite their having done nothing to anyone – much less committed any crime. See here and here and here, for openers.)

Don’t just bet your bippie. Bet your ass this is coming.

Efforts are currently under way to get mandatory gun insurance laws passed in the following states: California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. But the real push will come from Washington – from deep within the reticulated colon of tyranny, soon to issue forth its predictable product.

This is their strategy – and I expect it’s going to work. Because for it not to work, there would have to be a successful challenge of the idea of forcing people to buy insurance, period. Put another way, if it is wrong – or even merely unconstitutional – to force people to buy insurance in order to legally own a gun (even in their own homes) then it must also be wrong to force people to buy health insurance to “cover” their own selves. Or their cars, for that matter. To be compelled to buy any insurance at all – except in cases of property not yet fully paid for, in which case one has the free choice to not buy the property – or to wait until one has the means to do so outright, without taking a 5 The very idea of mandatory insurance itself must be thrown in the woods.

Do you expect that to happen? The system has already decreed it’s just fine – ethically peachy and legal – to literally threaten to cage people at gunpoint for failing to purchase a health insurance policy. And a car policy. What makes you think they will stop at that?

I don’t think they will stop.

The basic idea behind mandatory car and health insurance has been accepted by most people – to say nothing of the courts. And that is the real problem. If you have to buy car insurance because you might cause damage to someone else’s property (even if you never actually do) then surely you should also be required to cough up for a gun insurance policy. If you have an obligation – enforceable at gunpoint – to hand over money to the health insurance Mafia for “coverage” because you might get sick and might impose “costs on society” – then surely you have the same obligation when it comes to owning a gun.


Who will argue the principled opposite? That it is better to accept that when it comes to any given thing, some people may (indeed will) occasionally behave irresponsibly – and accept the consequences of this (and hold only them responsible for their actions) as the price of living in a free society – than it is to chase the unicorn of a risk-free society and along the way, treat everyone as presumptively irresponsible? To put a finer point on it: To punish the responsible  – the innocent – based upon the actions of the irresponsible and the guilty – in an ever-speeding-up vortex of dumbing-down and its inevitable corollary, the clamping down on whatever freedom of action remains.  A world in which nothing you do or might do isn’t someone else’s business. And theirs, yours. Everyone a prisoner of everyone else – and hating one another for it.

Hell on earth, realized. insurance 6

We are well on our way there.

Jefferson characterized the either-or this way: Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. That is: Better freedom with danger than slavery with safety. And even the sage of Monticello  made the error of accepting the premise that slavery can buy safety; it can’t – it never has. Ask the Soviet-era Ukrainian kulaks how “safe” they were under Stalin’s “protection.” Or on a smaller scale,  the 77 victims of  Anders Behring Breivik, all of them living in a legally disarmed, “safe” society that proved to be anything but “safe” for them.

So, here’s our choice.

Either people take a principled stand – and forget the utilitarian arguments – or they will accept what’s coming. They must reject not just the idea of being compelled to purchase gun insurance in order to be “allowed” to own a gun, they must question the whole filthy juggernaut that’s steaming along behind it. The very idea of mandatory any insurance.

It’s as simple – and as complicated – as that.

Government, if it has any ethical justification at all, exists solely to protect the rights of the individual. It is an assault on the rights of the individual to deprive him of his rights before he has done something to justify it. That he – that “someone” – might behave irresponsibly is thin gruel, inadequate to override the fact that he hasn’t yet. Any government that abuses any person’s rights – that punishes any person pre-emptively for things he hasn’t done but which someone “might” – is itself abusive and no longer legitimate.

Our rights are sacred – but we’ve forgotten. Most of all, we have forgotten that there has to be a damn good reason to forcibly deprive any human being of any of them.

Doing so because some other person did something –  or might do something (and thus, “you might, too”) – is an absolute outrage.

And to accept it, a degradation.

Will you accept it?

Throw it in the Woods?

  1. The idea of insurance and private security companies being the natural heirs to protective and adjudicative services was only one of Rothbard’s “suggestions” as to what might actually happen. But he very carefully stated that there is no way to tell exactly what freedom would actually look like. It might happen that way, then again it might be some other way–it has been so long since we have been free that there is no real way to tell.

    But actually, that is a very common, albeit erroneous, objection to the suggestion that insurance companies might morph into the protection business (it seems to make sense because they have an economic interest in the outcome–if they fail at prevention, it costs them money in premiums paid.

    Contrast that with the current state of affairs–the police have no real motive (economic incentive) to “prevent” crime. The old government check will arrive no matter how many crimes are committed. In fact, their economic incentive is the opposite–the higher the crime rate, the more stolen money they receive.

    Now, assume that your home was burglarized and you stuff taken. What are the chances the police will ever catch the guy and get your stuff back? Slim to none and once again it is because they have no economic incentive to do so.

    But suppose they did (accidentally) catch the guy. Will you get your stuff back? Highly unlikely. To add insult to injury, they will put him into the “system” for months and may or may not find him guilty and send him to prison. Who gets the bill? Yep, you do.

    A private, for profit, insurer has the economic incentive to first, prevent crime and second catch and punish those who have committed crimes against their clients. It costs him money to do anything otherwise.

    Another often heard objection to the insurance/private security companies: What if one company (through hook or crook) gains the monopoly on the provision of protective and adjudicative services? Answer: So what? All that means is that we are just right back to where we are right now. So, why not give liberty a chance?

    Then there is always the old belief that “mankind is naturally bad.” I do not believe that but will temporarily accept it for the sake of formulating the rebuttal. OK, so mankind is a bad animal. So why would anyone want to select a small minority of them who have proven themselves to be the worst of the worst (by being politicians) and put them in charge of everything?

    Personally, I’ll take my chances with the private sector instead of the gang of criminals that rely on their propaganda machine to maintain their “myth of authority” to remain in power.

    jtl, 419

  2. Any stated dangers inherent in anarcho-capitalism are also present in libertarian socialism. Just as a free market enterprise ‘may’ turn to exploitation, so ‘may’ a socialist committee or commune. This isn’t a big concern, so long as members of the respective communities can opt out and go elsewhere.

    The police have stopped feigning any appearance of doing anything other than being report takers for the insurance companies, as my encounter with them on behalf of a pilfered neighbor demonstrates:

    Cop: “Okay. I’ve got the information. Have your insurance company call for the report after about 7-10 days.”
    Neighbor: I don’t have insurance for this.
    Cop: “Looks like you’re screwed.”
    Neighbor: “Aren’t you going to try to find my stuff?”
    Cop: *laughing*

    The cops, in most crimes, are mere clerks for the insurance companies.

    I admit that my dealing with Blue Cheat/Blue Steal (and others) as a health care provider jades me. But I find any assertion that an insurance company has any interest in anything, other than their own interests. Consequently, I can’t take solace in the assertion that under a libertarian system they would suddenly become ethical.

    But, hell yes, let’s give liberty a chance.

    Thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: