[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, sometimes I think global warming is getting people pissed off and maybe we should do the argument the other way. In a manner that mattered.

Pollution kills people. Never mind ice caps, we all breath air. From that perspective alone, it should be more than sufficient argument both to have minimum emission standards and tax of releasing aerial pollution.

Everyone already pay a fee to get their garbage taken away. So why aren't those who release garbage into the air needing to pay for doing it?

Air is communal. This is the reason why smoking is restricted to certain places but junkfood isn't. If someone wants to eat a deep-fried stick of butter it would not affect my arteries. But if someone wants to smoke next to me than I would be forced to smoke too by proxy. I 100% believe pollution of every kind should be taxed the same way cigarettes are. If only to pay for cleaning up the mess later.

In China the ill and the elderly are already dying because of their near non-existent emission laws. The price had to be paid somewhere.

Pollution kills, but Carbon Dioxide doesn't - not in the quantities we're getting. Except, of course, if you consider its action as a greenhouse gas, and then we're back to the global warming thing.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Do you live in a "no fault" state?
Because without "no fault" the person responsible has to pay, insurance or no insurance, which is how is should be.

So what if that person isn't solvent? That's what (mandatory) insurance does - make sure that if you cause an accident, you can pay for it - through your insurance. I suppose if you're some kind of millionaire, I suppose you could put a large sum of money in escrow somewhere for that purpose, but it's just simpler to not make exceptions. If you're so rich, buy the whole insurance company and buy a policy from yourself or something.

You could tell me you're such a good, careful driver you'll never cause an accident - to which I'll answer "they all say that. Buy a goddamn insurance policy or walk."

In "no fault" if one party doesn't have insurance the state picks up the tab.
I would think that "no fault" actually encourages bad driving.

Reading rapidly - the "no-fault" thing is pretty alien to me - it doesn't seem to be about insurance at all. It's about the American Way of taking everything to court and it costing fortunes.

Here, typically, if two drivers get into an accident, each insurance company will reimburse its driver and sort out who was responsible among themselves. There might be some argument with the premiums, but not to the point where we have to give up on telling who the hell caused the freaking accident.