🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4g7t2m$1bc@cloner4.netcom.com>, gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen
Hunter ) wrote:

> In <msadamsDMupqu.374@netcom.com> msadams@netcom.com (Michael Adams)
> writes: 
> 
> > What they (insurance companies) are doing is immoral, and the message
> >of no-fault is immoral. It just reinforces bankrupt values where
> >people don't have to take responsibility for anything they do.  That
> >doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
> 
> Maybe I'm not the guy to get into this and, I swear, I don't want to
> drawn into a rhetorical debate, but, this issue is so curious to me,
> for some reason, I need to know more about it.
> 
> Re: morality - in your above description, it seems to me the *current*
> liability system could be considered - more immoral - than the proposed
> "no-fault" system.  I mean, currently, with the exception of posting a
> bond (which nobody does), in order to satisfy the state financial
> responsibility law, an individual driver in California must purchase
> liability coverage.  In moral terms, a driver has to pay money for a
> contract that shifts the responsibility for the negative consequences
> of his actions to a third party.  I guess, pure morality would mean
> that an individual takes full responsibilty for the consequences of his
> actions and won't shift it to another party to deal with.
[snip]
> These are tough issues, and I would like to be corrected if I missed
> the mark here.
> 
While some insurance companies may not have great morals, the
idea that shifting responsibility for your actions to an insurance
provider is somehow immoral doesn't make much sense.  Are you
morally opposed to life insurance, fire insurance, etc? Car 
accidents can also happen to innocent drivers.

-- 
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA

Nothing is what it first seems to be.