FreeMarketUnderdog in response to BLUEJAY25:

Sweeping assumption? It is you who is making a sweeping assumption by suggesting that I know nothing of our current financial system. I know more about it than you ever will.

What you probably refuse to recognize is that capitalism, in its true and honest form, is nothing more than the billions of transactions each day that occur between willing buyers and sellers. Surely you can't suggest that most of those transactions are crooked? Or is it just the financial ones? Think about yourself and how you spend your money on your daily travels. Are you cheating the other party to those transactions? Are they cheating you? It's ludicrous to suggest that all transactions are dishonest, much less outright crooked.

What you need to separate from true, honest capitalism is the crony capitalism performed when big corporations get in bed with big government. That is where the real damage is done. And who should we blame? The corporations who have learned to work the system? Or, maybe, just maybe, (give it some thought, now) perhaps we should blame the government that created that crooked system. Created it, by the way, by becoming the gatekeeper for four trillion dollars per year. If that isn't a system BEGGING for corruption and crony capitalism, I don't know what is.

I think we probably agree that big corporations being in bed with big government is bad for everyone. But laying the blame at the foot of capitalism is ridiculous. Capitalism is nothing more than a free, willing buyer and a free, willing seller coming to terms.

The government should do only those things that cannot be done by players in the free market. (This is essentially what the constitution authorizes, but you and way too many other people seem to want to disregard it.) As for your comment about roads, this is juvenilistic at best. "Why, if it wasn't for government, we would still be riding our bikes around. Glory be. Thank god for governments."

It is both the republican and democratic parties that have played games with the money of the American people for far too long. If you are taking sides with either one of them, you are simply following a herd. Do yourself a favor and get educated enough to realize that these two parties, hand in hand, are taking this country straight into another Depression. And this one will make the 1930s look like a bad day at the office.

FreeMarketUnderdog.com

And Flo's great insurance does not pay out. I had a home "covered" by them and when wind torn up shingles on the roof they said it was "faulty construction". Be afraid, be very afraid of Flo and her cohorts.

I agree that no such tracking systems should become mandatory or used by Uncle Sam for snooping. This topic raises a tangential one for me, though, if I may be permitted to jump the rails slightly off topic.

You see, I’m a Libertarian—not to be confused, of course, with a Republican. Republicans, unlike Democrats, are generally for more snooping and tracking by police and for an increased police force—both domestic and military. Democrats are against these things, as are, I think, most Libertarians. I certainly am.

But here’s the interesting inconsistency I see with Democrats. Democrats will go to their deaths defending the personal rights in the Bill of Rights—and I agree with that. Democrats will also go the step further and apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to personal property—that is, they will stand against eminent domain abuse and illegal search and seizure, such as the vehicle tracking discussed here. In other words, Democrats are strongly for protections of persons and their property. Again, I strongly agree.

Here’s the conundrum: Why then do democrats not view money and personal wealth as personal property? That is all money really is, after all. Personal property. If someone bartered for everything they owned, wouldn’t it be clear that items bartered for are personal possessions and are not available for the taking by anyone who thinks they need it. But for some reason, when that personal property consists of money, Democrats are of a different opinion. In that case, they assume the money must have been earned dishonestly in a rigged system, stolen from the mouths of the poor, or just plain stolen. Ridiculous notions, all.

We will not get this country back on track until money is treated as personal property and not confiscated simply because the majority says so. It will be a happy day, indeed, when Democrats can become as animated about the theft by government of another person’s money as they are of theft by government of another person’s personal liberties. In the end, money and personal liberties are just different forms of the same thing.

FreeMarketUnderdog.com

Seat Belts are highly efficient, durable, proven for over a half-century, but inexpensive. ‘Airbags’ are useless or worse in some crashes, occasionally explode unnecessarily, may be lethal to small children, perishable, but expensive. Since they thus raise the cost of an auto, they raise the price of Insurance. No wonder Insurance corps lobbied & pushed them mercilessly. Same Game here.

Insurance companies can not use punitive penalties. Because they will not compete with companies that do not punish their customers. Mr Sirota's grip on economics is weak. For him to make an assertion like this, he must also show why there is a lack of competition. Even Leonardo had to explain it was gravity that kept the earth moving around the sun, instead of just assert it. A lot or our problems as citizens trace directly back to irresponsible journalism concerning economics.

There are two relevant conditions either the devices help hold down costs are they only marginal or less.

If they do in fact hold down costs, then it is a freedom that people be able to join together under this cost saving method. If other people don't want that freedom, then they must absorb the cost of their choice. There will still be competition for their business, so the ability to abuse this niche is limited.

If there is no cost savings, then there is no motive, no financial reward to require them. Meaning insurance companies that don't will have a larger customer base, and they will do better then the big brother companies. Which exceeds the desirable condition of a competitive environment for "device-less" insurance.

In either case there is no affront. The only affront possible is forcing people who want access to those cost savings to subsidize those who don't. Which inexplicably appears to be just what Mr. Sirota is advocating.

Please pass on my disappointment with this so called journalism.

Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so. This is by 2015. So this discussion will soon be moot as these devices will be installed into the car right at the factory.

All one really needs to remember is that driving is NOT a "right," but a privilege granted by the State through a legal licensing procedure. No "rights" are violated by this action (as any honest Constitutional lawyer will tell you), as long as it is sanctioned by the laws of the State in question.

Now, one can certainly argue this is an infringement of personal dignity, but as so many people have been so happy to accept giving away their "rights" in the passage and acceptance of the Patriot Act and all amendments to it --> if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?