New Utah Law Instructs Cops To Seize Uninsured Vehicles
from the good-intentions,-bad-law dept
Does the government really even need excuses to seize the assets of its citizens, especially for relatively minor crimes? Apparently it does, at least according to the state of Utah.
A new law that went into effect on Jan. 1 changes the wording and adds provisions to a law that has been in effect since 2008 allowing officers to impound a vehicle that isn’t insured. The crucial verb that was changed, raising sides between those in favor and those opposed to the revised law, is the shift from the law previously stating that an officer “may” seize a vehicle without warrant if it’s being operated without insurance to the fact that now an officer “shall” seize said vehicle.The wording change makes it mandatory. What was always an option is now expressly a command. The senator behind the new law feels this is necessary despite uninsured drivers really not being much of a problem in his home state.
Even though the sponsor of SB 72, Sen. Lyle Hillyard, estimates Utah’s current rate of uninsured drivers at 3 percent, much less than the national average of 12.6 percent, he says it's still enough of a problem to address.No problem is too small. That's your government at work, Utah citizens. Will this new law lead to the sort of abuse witnessed in other areas of the country? Well, maybe. The low uninsured driver rate is one of the few things preventing this from becoming the full-blown, corrupt mess it is in other jurisdictions. The other factor is the restrictive language in the law, which provides for a surprising amount of protections for the public.
Officers are supposed to make a "reasonable, independent effort" to verify the vehicle is uninsured before seizing it. This means they can't simply seize it because the driver isn't carrying an insurance card. The claimed insurance company will need to be contacted before the vehicle can be seized, along with the owner of the vehicle (if said owner isn't the one driving). The amendment also authorizes an account for funds to be set aside to repay towing and storage charges incurred for vehicles wrongly impounded. (Of course, this requires the affected person to prove that the vehicle was wrongly impounded, but hey, at least there's some sort of due process, even if it occurs after the vehicle has already been seized.)
That's the good news. The bad news is that it gives law enforcement yet another way to take property away from citizens. It encourages trolling for seizures by turning the Uninsured Motorist database into a shopping list.
Then there's this. What if the driver's insurance agent isn't available at the time of the incident?
Another commenter unhappy with the new law said how she had been pulled over previously and had shown up as being uninsured. Because it was Saturday, the officer couldn’t reach her insurance agent but was kind enough to let her go with a warning. By the new wording in the law, unless there is reason to believe the woman’s safety is in question, the officer “shall seize” her vehicle.There's still no due process involved (pre-seizure) and vehicles are automatically deemed to be "guilty" of being driven without insurance. As far as criminal acts go, driving without insurance is on the low end of the spectrum, but the consequences are on par with drug trafficking or fraud.
Sure, every driver should have insurance, but this isn't a perfect world. There are very few good reasons why someone might drive without insurance, but the real world sometimes gets in the way. Payments might be missed and the reinstatement amount might be too high to pay in a lump sum. Some people are simply uninsurable due to their driving record -- or even solely because of their credit record.
This law seems about as close to abuse-proof as any asset forfeiture law, but it still has several problems, not the least of which is the demand that vehicles be seized (rather than left to officer discretion) and the reliance on law enforcement to carry through on "reasonable, independent verification." The nod to the "safety" of those whose vehicles can be seized ultimately means nothing. Past incidents have shown officers are more than willing to seize vehicles and leave drivers stranded on the side of the road. "Public safety" is generally invoked to assist in civil liberties violations -- like skirting warrant requirements or seizing recording devices -- not to actually ensure the "public" is any "safer."
As with any law that authorizes the seizure of property by the government, there's a potential for abuse. For a state with such a low uninsured driver rate, this law is overkill.
UPDATE: Eric Holder recently announced decision to eliminate states' participation in asset forfeiture programs is a move forward -- one that closes a loophole used by law enforcement agencies to bypass states' restrictions on seizures. However, it will have no effect on this program as this doesn't involve federal participation. So, there's still significant room for abuse in many states' programs, ones that will need to be closed at the local level.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cars, insurance, seizures, uninsured vehicles, utah
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't read into this as much as you do.
if the impounding is for everyone then we are all equal right? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't read into this as much as you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't read into this as much as you do.
Not really. Most of the people driving without insurance are illegals because they can't get insurance (or drivers licenses, in many cases), so the result of a law like this will be that the majority of seized vehicles will be from illegals, which will whip the typical grievance groups up into a frenzy, and the law will most likely either be repealed or gutted, as it was in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seizure or impound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws, laws, and more laws (for you and me, not the overlords)
Predatory laws. Disrespectfully killer kops. A phony religiion that talks about separation of church and state and yet has a 50 foot plastic national flag on state in their conference hall and, oh yes, asks for 10% of your gross income. The church founder/prophet loved to get drunk and fight (well, they didn't have tv to placate the masses, then), not to mention 40 wives. The CIA is known to use the missionary scam as cover for their activities of snooping (this is not specultation, but admitted fact).
This place is a joke, and a bad one at that. (But the mountains are nice.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laws, laws, and more laws (for you and me, not the overlords)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which?
There's a very specific difference there, which a lot of people don't really get.
Insurance companies love to double-dip too... by charging you for both.
An insured vehicle suggests that anyone driving that vehicle is covered by insurance. This generally applies to people who don't otherwise have their own insurance.
An insured driver can drive any vehicle, and is insured (even if the vehicle isn't).
It shouldn't be necessary to purchase insurance for both - but it seems states like to pass laws to make the former a requirement, while insurance companies focus on the latter (rightly so - the person driving is generally the measure of risk, not the vehicle by itself).
I recently got a letter from CA DMV telling me that a vehicle I recently registered is not insured - while I am indeed insured to drive it. What this means is I have to contact my insurance company and ask them to add that vehicle to my policy (which will cost me addition $, even if it is not driven). I find it ridiculous that it must be this way, but states don't really have any other leverage it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something they should be doing, perhaps
Get hit by an uninsured driver, and you're screwed.
I can't see impounding uninsured cars as an evil - it's not the same as an asset forfeiture. You get the car back once you get insurance for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because they are obviously a danger to everyone around them, and dangerous precedents never happen when you give dictatorial powers to people that constantly abuse the power they have
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last time I looked, home insurance was not about the damage your home might do to other people.
I cannot take this article serious, sorry. Over here in Germany, you might not move your car a meter in public space without insurance covering damage caused by you to other drivers: you don't get license plates without insurance, and when your insurance gets terminated for any reason, you have to return the license plates when without proof of continuation.
You can optionally insure your car against damage to your own car (and you have to do so if you use it as collateral for a loan) but the seminal point is that you cannot plan ahead just how expensive the car from someone else you might hit could turn out.
And yes, vehicles will get seized when encountered in the wild without insurance and/or valid license plates. Even when parked in public space as opposed to private property. The streets are not everybody's scrapyard.
If you are, say, driving a tractor from one town to another since you just bought it, and you don't intend to use it on public roads, you still have to buy temporary insurance and plates just for the drive.
And it's not like a tractor cannot cause quite a bit of damage when you figure out that such a beast, when without power brakes and power steering, takes a bit more of physical exertion to control than you are used to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you don't have liability insurance? I hope you don't have stairs/steps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if it's not your problem, why should you care?
That it drives up the cost of insurance is a problem for everyone is a reason why you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even family members.
And you think that this kind of grotesque government oppression is justified?
I guess that explains why Germans enjoy being shit on in their pornography--it's just an extension of their relationship with their government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> in public space without insurance covering damage caused by
> you to other drivers: you don't get license plates without
> insurance, and when your insurance gets terminated for any
> reason, you have to return the license plates when without
> proof of continuation.
What if you don't need insurance? What if you have more money than the insurance company and there's no possible accident that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for?
Do you still have to play this silly insurance game with the government?
(I've wondered this about Obamacare, too. Does Bill Gates actually have to sign up for a health insurance policy when he has so much money that there's no medical bill he wouldn't be able to just afford to pay outright?)
And in the Utah case, how does the cop who stops you on the road in the middle of the night verify your net worth to know that you don't need insurance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
what's an obama-care - haven't heard that company before. Do they have good rates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be verified to see if the point of this article is on target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What doesn't smack of asset forfeiture? Pretty much everything. I'm not in favor of this specific change to the law but there's a HUGE difference between this and asset forfeiture. If you're driving without insurance, you're breaking the law, and it is, in principle, a reasonable law. If you cause a wreck and have no insurance, someone else gets to pay for the consequences of your bad decision. The law is intended to protect the innocent victim. I have no heartburn with the general principle of having a law requiring automobile insurance if you're driving on a public road and with having reasonable consequences for breaking that law. If you're caught speeding, you get fined. You pay the fine and guess what - the state gets to keep your assets. That's how fines work. It's the inherent nature of a fine. The problem with asset forfeiture is that you don't even have to be breaking the law, and there is no reasonable way for you to contest the issue. If asset forfeiture laws required that you be charged and convicted with a crime before your property was permanently confiscated and that the relationship between the assets being forfeited and the crime was reasonable (ie you don't forfeit your house for selling a dime bag), then I'd have much less heartburn with asset forfeiture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing you say implies that this law cannot somehow be twisted around to permit either erroneous impounding of privately owned vehicles, or the assessment of improper fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY, Utah. YW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Safety
...and if they're driving anyway, seems to me that taking them off the roads serves a very legitimate public safety interest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Safety
If he's still a teenager and he's already had "a few tickets", then he's not a good driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
Tickets very rarely have anything to do with being safe or unsafe. They most often have to do with generating revenue for the city/county. When an officer has a quota to meet, everyone is a target, safe driving be damned. Judging drivers by tickets is usually (but not always) a bad way to make said judgments. Even accidents can be a bad way of judging driving. There are many people who crow about how good and safe they are because they've never gotten a ticket, and never had an accident... but they leave a trail of destruction behind them wherever they go.
The person who causes an accident is very often never actually part of the accident. They cut someone off to exit the freeway at the last second causing a chain-reaction pileup, look in their rearview mirror (if they notice it at all), and say "Damn! What terrible drivers! Glad I'm not one of them!"
People are judged on their driving by tickets and accidents because it's the EASIEST way to judge a driver, and is most often likely to place them into a category where you can charge them more for the same service - which is really all the insurance company cares about, not "safe" driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Safety
Traveling the public road is a right, until you hurt someone in their person or property, the cops have no authority to stop you, but you don't know that, and they won't tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Safety
Assuming you mean "driving" instead of "traveling", then actually, it's a privilege... that's why we have to obtain drivers licenses in order to drive a vehicle on a public road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
> it's a privilege... that's why we have to obtain drivers licenses in
> order to drive a vehicle on a public road.
Yes, isn't it great how we've just acquiesced and allowed the government to turn things that should be natural rights into mere privileges which can be revoked at the whim of some bureaucrat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
I agree 100%. However, If I choose not to drive on the roads, then I shouldn't have to pay for the roads. If I need to use the roads, Taxi, Bus, whatever... the cost of those roads should be built into the price of the service when rendered. If this were the case, and at that point I CHOOSE to drive on the roads, then I would agree with your statement... but we are not really given the choice are we?
If you are going to TAKE my money to fix the roads, then it should be my RIGHT to use them. That doesn't mean I don't have to adhere to the rules of the road, or common sense. But it's not a privilege if I'm being FORCED to pay for it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spendin g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
Ahh, that puts your comments into context.
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You don't really understand the term "natural rights", do you?
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
Not sure about anywhere else, but compulsory insurance laws came about in my state due to heavy lobbying from insurance companies.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
It's not irresponsible, if I have the funds to cover any liability that occurs. Why was this law changed in my state? Because insurance companies didn't get their cut that way.
And as an aside, since you worked in the insurance company, can you explain why my premium increases if a make a claim? Isn't that what I paid for all these years? Why am I charged more if I actually USE the insurance I pay for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Safety
Same in my state. I still think that if we're going to be required to have certain insurance, that insurance should be built in to the system itself. We all have to have liability insurance? Then the state should provide the insurance and the premium built into the price of registration. In one fell swoop, there would be no uninsured drivers.
I feel the same way about health insurance.
This business about being legally required to do business with an industry that has a long history of abusing their customers really gets under my skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Safety
Statistically, the insured driver is the safer driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You missed the obvious point of this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bridges for Rent
poor to sleep in uninsured vehicles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.infowars.com/report-bicyclist-flees-country-after-oregon-police-force-catheterizati on/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Debbie Downers, all of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Debbie Downers, all of you.
Though its quite possible that the dumper could be a different person than the shooter, and that therefore it's just a strange concidence (or is it a sport?) that every old TV dumped in the desert ends up being shot to pieces as thoroughly as a "no hunting" sign in Kentucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry... this isn't the same
Here is California the uninsured vehicles are out of control. People can buy 1-day insurance policies, just long enough to get the registration past the DMV. It is total BS.
A friend of mine was hit and seriously injured by a woman who bought insurance from the back of a van in the downtown LA Mexican market. Guess what? It turned out to be nothing but a worthless piece of paper. She was uninsured, yet the police let her walk. As far as we know, she is still driving around LA hitting people with her car.
I really wish my state would implement a system like they have in other countries. You have to pre-pay 6 to 12 months of insurance in order to get your registration. You pay through the DMV. That way every car is insured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry... this isn't the same
I do have the option of going after this asshole alcoholic legally, but since my out of pocket expenses was ~$100, it's not worth it. If it were in the $1000s or more, you can bet I would take him to court and sue him for that money.
Anyway, my point is there is going to be no perfect system. In your "prepay through the DMV", there's no free-market way to shop around for the best rates, so good drivers like me will ultimately end up paying more than they should (just like today). And—Shia surprise!—people would still find a way to work around that, even if it is simply to not bother registering their cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry... this isn't the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry... this isn't the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry... this isn't the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utah seizing no insurance vehicles
DUI husband and teens on the policy, and allowed them to drive anyway. In cases of hit and runs, do they automatically assume the other driver did not have insurance? So the estimate of only 3% is highly suspect.
Some of these" shoot now, ask questions later laws", such as the towing of Utah vehicles, including those vehicles that have insurance that can't be verified right away, should consider themselves lucky. In Missouri, an elderly lady was sent to jail because of incorrect insurance data. Finally State Farm was called, confirmed she had insurance, and she was let out of jail.
Poor people have various ways of purchasing auto insurance on their limited budget. If they are eligible for food stamps, they can use their food money for auto insurance and go on food stamps. (I collected 3,000$ of food stamps and LIEAP due to Montana's mandatory auto insurance law). Poor people can also use their rent money for auto insurance and go delinquent on their rent and have the landlord indirectly pay for the auto insurance.
Before Utah somehow gets every poor person to buy auto insurance, they should first get the insurance industry behind the law. Many insurance companies, including State Farm, oppose mandatory auto insurance laws because they do not want to insure high-risk drivers and also because poor people cannot afford it.
People who suggest poor people should take the bus, taxi, etc, can't seem to realize it is much, much more simpler to drive without insurance. When I was in the Air Force, life insurance purchase was mandatory.
Then I got out of the Air Force and Phil Donahue said I was wasting my money, a single man with no dependents has no business buying life insurance. Now we have proponents saying you need auto insurance and the insurance people saying it should not be a law. I think I will believe the insurance people.
What is next, a law requiring tazing or waterboarding of those driving without insurance? Why not first try to get a pig to fly. If you taze a hog, he might fly around a bit, but I don't think that counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Utah seizing no insurance vehicles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should start "insuring" anyone in Utah for $1
Kind of like Amazon charging 1 Eurocent for shipping after being legally prevented from offering customers free shipping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should start "insuring" anyone in Utah for $1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kittens, Kittens, Kittens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kittens, Kittens, Kittens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kittens, Kittens, Kittens
It is far more likely that they will instead fine you for some pollution citation and radio ahead to other cops on your homeward path, who will levy similar charges upon your vehicle, all the way home.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kittens, Kittens, Kittens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Days gone and lost forever
Also, although I donate to the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund and to the local Sherriff when I can, its getting harder to appreciate what they are doing when I hear of all this seizure activity of people's hard earned property. I don't call 911 because they are first and foremost out for themselves. They love to get in the middle of a good old fight. I wonder if they get checked for steroid use because they come all pumped up ready to tangle looking as close to Arnold as they can. The thought that they can legally rob someone without even charging them for a crime makes me nauseous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurnace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insurnace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insurnace
> they can barely afford the car itself).
Insurance is part of the cost of having a car, just like the gas and the maintenance. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Insurnace
A car can run just fine without insurance, the same cannot be said for gasoline, so while it would certainly be ideal if everyone had, and could afford, insurance, the two are not in fact equal when it comes to 'necessary for the vehicle to run'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace
Exactly. Do without. You're not entitled to a car in this world.
I did without for many years when I was younger for precisely that reason. I could barely afford a car, but I couldn't afford the insurance and other costs, so I did without, and still managed to get where I needed to go.
What I didn't do is whine about it, break the law, and justify it with my personal sob story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance
How come the proponents have to resort to sneaky underhanded methods to get these laws. In Nebraska, the proponents tried for 22 years to get driving without insurance laws passed and failed thru the Banking and Insurance Committee. Failing that, they took the bill to the Public Works Committee. In Wisconsin, the legislature said "no" to mandatory auto insurance, so the proponents stuck mandatory insurance in the budget bill. If mandatory auto insurance is so necessary, why do you proponents have to use such sleazy tactics???????????? Why is it always drivers without insurance that kill people, drivers with insurance have never killed anyone on the highway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is only going to get worse until its stopped entirtely.
Closed!!???!!
Hell, you can almost smell the carbon fumes from all the local boys burning the midnight oil trying to come up with the right words to alter their own laws in ways that make asset forfeiture the new Budget Funding Miracle of the Century.
Aint no way the Blue Boys are going to do without the awesome Reverse Robin Hood income they've all become accustomed to.
How else are they gonna buy all them shiny new military toys from ObamaRama MilSale... or send their kids to college, or get the wife that nifty mink coat....
It'll take a few more months, but you can bet your ass the Boys in Blue Unions will be lawyering up and getting legislation passed that will make today's Asset Forfeiture Programs look like Church Bake Sales.
No crook will willingly allow an easy mark to escape once they've been cornered and with the right laws in place, the entire public becomes the perfect eternal patsy.
When crooks write the laws, only citizens need fear the long arm of the law and its soldier-enforcers.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mandatory Insurance
Your government love you, repeat after me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good drivers getting punished
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uninsured motorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
property ownership taken bu Utha state is criminal doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three worst laws in the U.S.
(2) Women could not have the right to vote (favored by rich white males)
(3) Poor people cannot drive on the public roads (favored by rich whites, male and female. (vehicles of poor people who are excellent drivers are seized and towed in Utah, for no insurance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three worst laws in the U.S.
I don't think #3 is very logical.
Those rich white males don't get rich off their own backs, the employ others to do so for them. If the people they pay can't get to work, the rich white guy doesn't get rich. Why do you think the rich white guy supports this new immigration reform push going on right now? Cheap labor is cheap labor, they don't really care who it is as long as it's cheap. The people that compete for those low wage jobs should be up in arms right now, it's about to get a whole lot harder to find work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utah's New Law -Confiscation of vehicles w/o/ insurance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Problem
Can't do anything that might so much as inconvenience an illegal, dontcha know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Problem
Well of course you can't interfere with the daily routine or the necessary transportation of illegal aliens in California.
They are, after all, working for California's ultra rich Elite, doing chores that would actually cost the elite real wages if white folks did them.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Problem
Whip the bleeding hearts into a frenzy, add a liberal amount of "think of the children", get them tearing down the borders and flooding the labor pool with cheap labor. Meanwhile, support higher taxes and a massive government (which really only costs a fraction of earnings due to all the cheap labor) to keep everything under control.. The "MAN" loves this shit. All the bleeding hearts that hate big business are consistently lobbying for immigration reform, providing cheap labor for the very big business they hate. Brilliant!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it is like to be poor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What it is like to be poor
It's hard to become self-sufficient without the wherewithal to get there. We all need the tools to get the job done, is what I'm saying.
I understand that many of those 40 million are actually working. If their wages went up, they would be able to afford insurance, wouldn't they? In the meantime, perhaps their Scroogey bosses should be made to pay for it so they can get to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What it is like to be poor
Actually, poverty is an institutionalized social engineering process that has always been necessary to support a wealthy upper class.
Rant Warning
============
Poverty is a primary necessity in any empire civilization, as it provides the desperation needed to create minions and petty criminals out of your average, otherwise honest, civilians.
Without minions, the wealthy would need to seek professional assistance for activities such as espionage and assassination, and pay premium mercenary prices for all those armed guards patrolling their estates.
Without petty criminals, crime would be nearly invisible, since the real criminals, who work for the wealthy, are never arrested or exposed to public awareness.
One of the main reason that Drugs are still illegal is to provide the necessary level of daily "crime" needed to keep the public scared shitless and willing to put up with more and more minions in Blue walking the street.
As the wealthy take more of the public wealth, it becomes necessary to increase this level of fear, and so Terrorists were born to create greater desperation and fear and futility and increase the sale of drugs and thus increase the NEED for more Blue Clad Minions.
Poverty creates the desperation and drive for normal people to risk everything to sell drugs in the hopes for a get rich quick escape from poverty, and fuels the depression and futility necessary to drive the population to the use of those same drugs.
The actual winners in that war are of course the very same people who have the money to set up and carry out the vast distribution process needed for such a market - the wealthy rulers who control the economy and the wages and cost of products which maintains poverty at its optimum level.
Poverty is an absolutely necessary part of the process of public exploitation and cannot be erased or even lessened as long as criminals rule from the top of a civilization. It can only increase as the greed of those sucking the life blood out of humanity increases, and the need for more desperate minions and criminals thus increases.
Even more importantly to the wealthy is the fact that poverty creates the primary drive for citizens to become soldiers, because, for the wealthy, war is the greatest of all commercial opportunities.
If you look at any major war, you will note that just prior to the beginning of that war, the nations involved suddenly went through a short but nasty period of economic downturn.
This is entirely manufactured in order to create the additional desperation needed to get most men to join the army and fight a war.
Sadly, in order to eradicate poverty, one must eradicate wealth and that is absolutely impossible when half the world is already addicted to it, and that half rules.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance companies lobbied for mand auto insurance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Utah Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uninsured
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO NEED TO HAVE THEIR VEHICLES IMPOUNDED!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not long ago men were hung for stealing your means of transportation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vehicle Seizure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]