CathInfo.com

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Dolores

Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws.  There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable.  The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.  
We have GOT to stop making excuses and/or chastising others

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums.  They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

I understand.  The problem is this:

1.  In almost every state you are mandated by law to carry insurance.
2.  A moving violation is not an accident, and does not cost the insurance company anything.
3.  Insurance companies are private entities and your dealing with them is a business transaction.
4.  Since the government forces you to engage in this transaction, they are in effect punishing you twice for the same infraction.

When an insurance company places surcharges on your insurance for something that did not cost them anything, and you are forced to pay them by law, it is in effect a double penalty for the same offense.  

1.  True.  But you are only required to carry liability insurance, i.e., payment for others in the event you are at fault.  The required component of car insurance is for the protection of other drivers, not yourself.

2.  True again, however, it increases the probability that the insurance company will have to eventually pay out for an at-fault accident.  While it's true that you individually may never have an at-fault accident, insurance companies set rates in the aggregate.

3.  True.  And if one is costing you too much, there is a plethora of others to choose from.

4.  The government is only forcing you to deal with them if you wish to continue driving.  You could avoid the whole thing and start taking a bus if it is really a problem.  Or, you could shop around and see if another company will charge you less.

Even if it is a "double penalty," I don't see any injustice in that per se.  If someone vandalized another's property, and their sentence was to pay restitution and do several hours of community service, would you object because it is a "double penalty"?  Of course not.  Or, if we look at a more serious offense, do you find any injustice in sɛҳuąƖ offenders have to go to jail, and once released, be permanently placed a sex offender registry?  Is this not also a "double penalty," according to your definition?

Again, simply obeying a morally neutral traffic law would avoid this whole problem.

Wow. Talk about adjusting to dysfunction!  and even acting as an apologist for such a disgustingly un Catholic system.   who criticize injustice and usury under this ʝʊdɛօ masonic gov't.

I reject your premises.  All your arguments are based upon the dysfunctional structure of a corpocracy run by evil men.  You are defending partial truths.  Study the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ - don't defend an unjust system and condemn those who are injured by the injustice.