[russotto]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Are you referring to any activities in particular? If you are not able to afford
whatever liabilities your actions may cause, who should bear the cost of your liability?

There are numerous activities which can create greater liabilities than you can afford. Driving, obviously. Any use of fire -- you can burn down your whole block, or even start multi-million-dollar wildfires. Riding a bicycle, if you're poor enough; you can hurt or even kill someone that way.

If you can't bear the actual cost of your activities, you go bankrupt and the victims or their insurance companies are left holding the bag. This is bad, but it is far worse to insist that you not engage in activities for which you can't pay for the worst possible consequences thereof.

I would say that being able to afford whatever liabilities you cause amounts to being responsible for your actions. Do you disagree?

Yes; it means you must be a multi-millionaire to be "responsible for your actions".

Really. Inevitably? Do you disagree with pastrami's assertion that the law requiring drivers to carry proof of insurance is in place to make the enforcement of the insurance requirements easier, or do you think that having to carry proof of insurance is leading us on the path to a police state?

We're more than halfway there, with laws which are made for the convenience of the police.