This article read like someone who really just needed to get a special interest/hyperfocus gripe off their chest and contributes little to a classical liberal conversation.
In a world where government licensing and compulsory insurance schemes like the TAC didn't exist, the free market in insurance would price risk based on statistics. If they are as you say, the premiums for motorcyclists would be higher.
While the government is interfering, calling for it to interfere harder in the name of equity is unedifying.
I don't entirely disagree, but the key par is this:
"Some libertarians argue that it’s unfair that all users pay the same fee. Instead, the fee should be weighted toward those most likely to be in or cause crashes."
Well, OK. So, I examined the evidence on where that would lead.
This article read like someone who really just needed to get a special interest/hyperfocus gripe off their chest and contributes little to a classical liberal conversation.
In a world where government licensing and compulsory insurance schemes like the TAC didn't exist, the free market in insurance would price risk based on statistics. If they are as you say, the premiums for motorcyclists would be higher.
While the government is interfering, calling for it to interfere harder in the name of equity is unedifying.
I don't entirely disagree, but the key par is this:
"Some libertarians argue that it’s unfair that all users pay the same fee. Instead, the fee should be weighted toward those most likely to be in or cause crashes."
Well, OK. So, I examined the evidence on where that would lead.