Car Insurance and Statism

The problem with a multi-author blog devoted to liberty is that people, almost by definition, have to be free to write what they want. And that includes, as this post at the Orphans of Liberty shows, giving them the right to write illiberal bilge.

At the end of a slightly rambling and definitely racist post, the Quiet_Man writes:

It strikes me that the system used if we must legally hold car insurance needs to be overhauled to a state where it would be difficult to own a car and not have insurance. Or more draconian would simply be the crushing of any vehicle found being driven without insurance or a license and jail time for the uninsured.
Yes I know that isn’t very liberal of me, but I do believe that if I abide by the rules (unfair as they sometimes are) then others should abide by them too, particularly when the cost of not abiding by the rules hits me in the pocket.

It strikes me that if the system needs to be overhauled the best way in which to do so is not to increase the ability of the government to seize private property and imprison its citizens - especially if that system of rules is unfair. Anything else is fundamentally statist, and fundamentally illiberal. Yeah, car insurance is far too expensive and yeah, the price is forced up by those who drive, and then cause accidents, while uninsured. But the answer is not greater state control, but rather a real attempt to reduce state intervention in the cost of getting cars and drivers on the road. Reduce road tax. Reduce the staggeringly high tax on petrol. And yeah, review the nature of car insurance in this country, which does play into the hands of insurance companies. But more car crushing and more people going to prison is nothing more than the solution of the draconian, illiberal statist.