SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 398.55-0.2%4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TobagoJack who wrote (69967)12/24/2010 6:09:41 PM
From: dan64 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 218573
 
I'm sure that there are good reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea, but I've always thought that one legitimate use of government might be to act as the insurance provider of all kinds, and to eliminate all private insurance. in a sense they already do this when the police, fire department, and rarely, the military, work to protect citizens from unexpected disaster.

Most people don't pay fire insurance to have the fire department put out a fire in their home. (OK, except for that guy in rural Tennessee.) So, in a sense, the government is already in the fire insurance business. People don't scream about the fire department or police as being part of a nefarious socialist enterprise.

It seems common sense that the largest pool of people should absorb as much of the risk of black swan events as possible. And thus I argue, though not too seriously, that providing insurance of all kinds is fake work.

By all means, stay healthy, if you can. And prevent your house from burning down, if you can, your boat from sinking, etc...

-D.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext