Since the station boasts some of the best series – and ratings – on all of television these days, I know I am not the only person who has fallen in love with some of CBS’ exciting prime time shows like CSI, or its two spin-offs, CSI: Miami or CSI: New York.
Heck, that trio alone has garnered the station some broad drawing power all by themselves.
However, CBS also boasts some other excellent shows that I also watch on a regular basis, like NUMB3RS, Criminal Minds, Close To Home and The Unit.
Without delving too much into my television viewing habits, I plan it would be interesting to take a mercurial peek at the acting careers of some of the incredibly talented African-American actors who have reached the pinnacle of the acting profession and are now lighting up the “small screen” in millions of homes across the United States on a weekly basis.
I’m clear you’ll find some of the biographical information on each actor quite bewitching – because I certainly did, especially after doing the research. At any rate, here is my feature on fall television’s prime time African-American actors on CBS.
Khandi Alexander: CSI Miami
Way before Alexander ever made her first appearance as coroner Alexx Woods on CSI: Miami, she appeared on Broadway and choreographed international recording star, Whitney Houston’s international tours from 1989 to 1992.
Born in New York City on September 4, 1957 Alexander is also a former dancer in addition to her success as a choreographer and film and television star and was educated at Queensborough Community College.
She was first introduced to television viewers on a weekly basis with her portrayal of Catherine Duke, on NBC’s “NewsRadio” and had a seven-year recurring role as Jackie, the sister to actor, Eriq La Salle’s Dr. Peter Benton, on the hit television show, “ER” that helped to solidify her stature as an in-demand actor.
However, it was her highly acclaimed portrayal of Fran Boyd, the manipulative, loving and sympathetic junkie on HBO’s “The Corner” which garnered Alexander a “Best Mini- Series” Emmy nod.
Alexander has been described as a no-nonsense performer who has developed quite a reputation for consistently delivering knockout performances.
Alexander’s film credits include “ There’s Something About Mary”, “No Easy Way”, “Sugar Hill”, the Chris Rock rap music spoof “CB4” and the Tina Turner Bio-pic, “What’s Love Got To Do With It.”
Theatrically, Alexander has also performed in “The Tragic and Spoiled Life of the Singing Nun”, “Does a Tiger Wear a Necktie”, “ Legacy”, “Period of Adjustment”, and “Color of Blue”, in addition to the previously mentioned, Bob Fosse’s “Dancin.’”
Alexander continues to explore the limits of her talent as a performer and actor and I must add that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see her popularity continue to rise well into the next decade.
Hill Harper: CSI Current York
I really enjoy Harper in his role on CSI: New York as Dr. Sheldon Hawkes, a reclusive coroner who walked away from a promising surgical career after the traumatic loss of two patients.
However, the thing I like most about Harper, who was born Frank Hill Harper on May 17, 1966 in Iowa City, Iowa, doesn’t take place in front of any cameras.
Off camera, Harper’s accomplishments are probably more overwhelming than anything he’s done in front of one.
Heck, Harper is almost a darned genius who could have been a huge success in any field. He graduated magna cum laude from Brown University (A.B. 1988) and also graduated with a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Master of Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
This coming February, Harper will star in the HBO movie, Lackawanna Blues, which is based on the critically acclaimed stage play by Ruben Santiago-Hudson. Recently, People magazine selected Harper as one of their “Sexiest Men Alive” (2004).
Prior to CSI: NY, Harper co-starred as an ambitious undercover FBI operative on the CBS series, The Handler, alongside Emmy Award nominee Joe Pantoliano. The role earned him a 2004 Golden Satellite Award nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series. He has also been recognized by the NAACP Image Awards with a nomination as Best Supporting Actor for his performance in the CBS series, City of Angels.
His recent film roles include the lead in the independent film, Cherish, Sex and Eating the Bones, which was accepted into the Toronto International, Palm Springs, and Pan African film festivals.
Harper’s other screen credits include: Loving Jezebel, The Nephew (with Pierce Brosnan), The Skulls (with Joshua Jackson), In Too Deep (with Omar Epps, L.L. Cool J and Nia Long), Beloved, Hav’ Plenty, He Got Game (with Denzel Washington), and Get on the Bus. Other films include Zooman (with Louis Gossett Jr., Charles S. Dutton and CCH Pounder), Full Court Press (with Ellen Burstyn and Taye Diggs) and One Red Rose, which he also co-wrote, for Showtime.
Harper is also a member of Boston’s Black Folk’s Theater Company and is dating actress Gabrielle Union for good measure.
Kimberly Elise: Stop to Home
When I recently began watching Close To Home, I was genuinely – and pleasantly – surprised to see veteran actress, Kimberly Elise who is undoubtedly one of the best African-American female actors in the entire acting industry today.
From her famous roles in major films like “Set It Off,” “Diary of a Mad Unlit Woman” and “Beloved,” not to mention, “The Manchurian Candidate,” “Woman Thou Art Loosed,” “John Q,” and “Bait,” Elise has inspired viewers to screech the entire gamut of their emotions with her notable performances.
Born Kimberly Elise Trammel on April 17, 1967, Elise’s first movie was Position It Off (1996), in which she played one of four women who resort to robbing a bank for money. Following that she played a role in Beloved, alongside Oprah Winfreyand Danny Glover.
In 2004, she appeared in Woman Thou Art Loosed portraying Michelle, an abused young woman who finally got the help she needed behind bars. This role won her a Black Reel award for best actress. She has since appeared in The Manchurian Candidate and Diary of a Mad Black Woman (for which she has won a NAACP Image Award)
Her television movie credits include “Bojangles,” “The Loretta Claiborne Story” and “The Ditchdigger’s Daughters.” She has also appeared in the series “Soul Food” and “Girlfriends.” Elise was born in Minneapolis and lives in Los Angeles. Her birth date is April 17.
Elise was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota to Marvin Trammel, who owned an executive search firm, and Erna Jean Johnson; she has three siblings and studied film and acting at the University of Minnesota and received a BA in Mass Communication.She was married to Maurice Oldham from 1989 until 2005 and has two children named Ajableu and Butterfly.
Elise currently stars on End to Home, playing Marion County prosecutor Maureen Scotfield, the superior of the show’s main character, fellow prosecutor Annabeth Chase (Jennifer Finnigan).
Cress Williams: Close To Home
Close To Home actually shy me twice when I watched my first episode, by not having one, but two veteran African-American actors on the cast.
Anyone who has been watching television prime time over the past 15 years, knows Cress Williams from his many television credits, which include recurring roles in “Nash Bridges,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “The West Soar,” “Veronica Mars,” “Providence,” “ER,” “Living Single” and “Beverly Hills 90201.”
Williams also guest starred on numerous television series including “Becker,” “Touched by an Angel” and “JAG,” which were also all on CBS. Williams’ feature film credits include “The Dogwalker,” “Two Days in the Valley,” “Fallen,” “Never Been Kissed” and “Little Dusky Book.” Williams was born in Heidelberg, Germany. His birth date is July 27.
Gary Dourdan: CSI
You know what I found incredible? As mighty as my wife and I both watch television, neither of us could come up with the name of the African-American actor who plays on the original CSI – and also appeared, as my wife repeatedly pointed out, on one of her popular shows of all-time, “A Different World.”
Okay, now that I’ve got that fact in this column, specifically at my wife’s insistence, let me say that, after doing some research, I will never forget the name of Gary Dourdan.
Born on December 11, 1966 in my hometown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dourdan and his family moved to Willingboro, New Jersey when he was in his youth.
At this time his interests included acting, music and martial arts. Later Dourdan moved to Modern York City and worked as a doorman at a rehearsal studio where he met some of Manhattan’s promising young artists.
He got his first break when Debbie Allen cast him as Shazza Zulu on A Different World based on a tape of him in an avant-garde play. He continued to work sporadically until he nabbed the part of Warrick Brown on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.
He was also the host of a BET Spoken Word show entitled the Lyric Café and was briefly married to Roshumba Williams.
Dourdan also has a daughter, Nyla and a son, Lyric from prior relationships and recently joined DMC on stage at Live 8 at Park Place in Barrie, Ontario, and also co-sang the lyrics to the theme song of The Jeffersons at the 2005 Emmy Awards.
Dourdan also starred in the movie Alien: Resurrection and is currently site to play Thin Lizzy frontman Phil Lynott, in a biographical film.
Shemar Moore: Criminal Minds
I’m really not very fond of Moore for reasons I really won’t get into, but I must admit that his performances on Criminal Minds has been better than I expected.
Born, Shemar Franklin Moore on April, 20 1970 in Oakland, California, Moore is an actor and former male fashion model with Irene Marie Models.
Moore was born to a Caucasian mother of Irish/French-Canadian descent and an African-American father. He is best known for his role as Malcolm Winters on The Young and the Restless, which he originally played from 1994 to 2002.
He was also the host of the syndicated version of the series Soul Train from 1999 until 2003 (although no one will ever be able to truly replace the legendary Don Cornelius), and appeared in the 2000 feature film The Brothers.
In November 2004, he returned to The Young and the Restless as Malcolm Winters, after a few months he dropped back to recurring status and left in September 2005. He also portrayed Det. Jesse Reese in the television show Birds of Prey (TV Series) from 2002 to 2003.
In his role on Criminal Minds, Moore portrays FBI Special Agent Derek Morgan, the team’s resident “tough guy.” Moore also had an excellent supporting role in the film Diary of a Mad Black Woman and has won legions of fans for his high-profile modeling, often shirtless, and his status as daytime’s first black soap hunk. Moore is a graduate of Santa Clara University, where he majored in Communications.
Lennie James: Jehrico
Lennie James is a British actor that I admittedly, know almost nothing about although he has appeared in nearly twenty films, including the Guy Ritchie crime caper Snatch (2000), 24 Hour Party People (2002), and Sahara (2005). James attended the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, graduating in 1988 and currently plays Robert Hawkins in the CBS post-apocalyptic television drama series Jehrico.
Alimi Ballard: Numbers
NUMB3RS is undeniably one of my accepted shows on television these days and actor, Alimi Ballard, whose name I wasn’t really familiar with, has been a huge part of getting me to tune in on a weekly basis.
Ballard is another actor I had seen in various roles, but really didn’t know much about until I began my research for this article.
Born and raised in Bronx, New York, Ballard began his acting career while in high school. Because of his godfather’s urging, Ballard joined MindBuilders, a local New York community center dedicated to the empowerment of youth, and was cast in a play called “No Laughing Matter.”
Weeks later, he found himself touring Unique York’s inner-city libraries, community centers and elementary and high schools. He later joined the Manhattan Theater Club and the National Shaded Theater, where he starred in “Holiday Heart” and “Endangered Species.”
Ballard’s first television role came on ABC’s daytime drama, “Loving,” where he starred as the haunted youth, Frankie Hubbard. Ballard landed his first primetime role on “New York Undercover” and in 1996, Ballard moved to Los Angeles, and shortly thereafter landed a role on ABC’s “Arsenio.”
Ballard’s film credits include “Deep Impact,” “Men of Honor,” “Malcolm X,” and “Three Days of Rain.” His many television credits include “Dark Angel,” “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” “New York Undercover,” “American Dreams,” “Arsenio,” and guest spots on “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” “Nash Bridges,” “NYPD Blue,” “Boomtown,” “Philly,” “She Spies,” “Malcolm and Eddie,” “The Division,” “For the People” and the movie “The Little Richard Story” in addition to his current role as FBI agent David Sinclair on NUMB3RS.
Ballard currently lives in Los Angeles with his wife, Dawn, and daughter, Naya. His birth date is Oct. 17.
Dennis Haysbert: The Unit
I’ll admit that I don’t inspect The Unit nearly as much as I do some of the other CBS shows, but I have always been fond of veteran actor, Dennis Haysbert and have come to view the show more often than I previously did because of the presence of three African-American actors on the show’s cast. However, this section is all about Haysbert.
Born Dennis Dexter Haysbert in San Mateo, California, on June 2, 1954, Haysbert is best known for portraying the role of David Palmer from the American television show 24.
After graduating high school, measuring 6’4” large, Haysbert was offered various sports scholarships, but instead chose to study acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Haysbert is the divorced father of two.
Haysbert has been acting in film and television since 1979, starting with a guest role in The White Shadow. His television guest starring roles include Lou Grant, Laverne & Shirley, The A-Team, Magnum, P.I., Buck Rogers and Duckman.
On film, Haysbert has appeared in Absolute Power, Random Hearts and Far From Heaven among others.
In 1989, Haysbert portrayed Pedro Cerrano, a voodoo-practicing baseball player in the movie Major League, in which he uttered the memorable line: “It is very bad to steal Jobu’s rum. Very bad”.
In 1992, Haysbert co-starred with Michelle Pfeiffer in Love Field, a film about the assassination and funeral of President John F. Kennedy. In 1999, Haysbert starred with Eric Close in Now and Again, which was cancelled after its first season.
In 2001, Haysbert became better known when he was cast in 24 playing the African-American Senator (later President) David Palmer.
He maintained his status as a cast member through seasons two and three. As a guest star, he appeared in the last six episodes of season 4 and the first episode of season 5.
In addition to television and film acting, Haysbert has also done voice work for various video games, most notably as Irving Lambert in Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell series and narrator of Call of Duty: Finest Hour.
Haysbert is also the official spokesman for the Allstate Insurance Company and he also voices the Military Channel’s commercials with their official slogan: “The Military Channel – Go Unhurried the Lines.”
Haysbert portrays Jonas Blane, on the Unit.
Regina Taylor: The Unit
Born, August 22, 1960, in Dallas, Texas and raised in Oklahoma, Taylor’s earliest professional acting roles were two made-for-television films while she was studying at Southern Methodist University: 1980’s Nurses and 1981’s Crisis at Central High, where she was praised by critic John O’Connor of The New York Times for her portrayal of Minnijean Brown, a member of the Little Rock Nine.
Her first role to gain her widespread attention nationally, was that of Mrs. Carter, the drug-addicted mother of a promising young female student, in the 1989 film Lean on Me.
Taylor however, is best known for her role as Lilly Harper on the early 1990s TV series I’ll Fly Away. This role won her a Golden Globe award for Best Actress in a Television Drama and also an NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series.
Since then Taylor has had some critical success for various supporting roles in films, such as the Spike Lee film Clockers, Courage Under Fire, A Family Thing, The Negotiator, and for the telefilms Losing Isaiah and Unusual Justice — a Showtime recent film — and as the lead in the PBS telefilm Cora Unashamed, based on a Langston Hughes short story.
Taylor is currently plays the role of Molly Blaine on the The Unit. The tough-minded housewife holds the women of ‘the Unit’ together when their men are on covert assignments.
Taylor is also an accomplished stage actress, and was the first dusky woman to play Juliet in Romeo and Juliet on Broadway. Her other Broadway credits include Macbeth and As You Like It.
A prolific playwright, Taylor is a Distinguished Artistic Associate of Chicago’s Goodman Theater. Among her many accomplishments, she has collaborated on and appeared in the play Millennium Mambo; has written A Night in Tunisia, which premiered during the 2000 Alabama Shakespeare Festival; has won a best new play award from the American Critics’ Association for Oo-Bla-Dee (a work about 1940s female jazz musicians); has written and directed the award-winning Crowns, which was first produced at the McCarter Theatre and at Second Stage in New York.
Taylor is currently the writer-in-residence at the Alliance Theatre in Atlanta, Georgia, where she is working on the new play Magnolia, status during the beginning of desegregation in Atlanta in 1961.
Demore Barnes: The Unit
Barnes is a Canadian film and television actor, co-staring in the hit CBS drama, The Unit. Originally from Toronto, Barnes began his carrer with an appearance on the sketch comedy show Squawk Box on YTV and from there he joined the cast of Street Cents.
Barnes was a shy student at Sir Oliver Mowat High School in Toronto when some friends cajoled him into hosting the school’s Christmas assembly. The performance was a hit, giving Barnes the confidence to try out for Squawk Box, a sketch comedy present on YTV that is the equivalent of Canada’s version of Nickelodeon.
Although he was just eighteen years weak, and it was his first professional audition, Barnes got the job – and the beginning of a career in acting was launched. The present lasted one season, by which time Barnes knew he wanted to pursue acting as a career. He applied to Ryerson University’s theatre program, but a successful audition for the CBC kids show,” Street Cents”, sidetracked his academic aspirations.
He spent the next three seasons on the show doing sketch comedy. “Street Cents” allowed him to hone his comedic talents, but he felt the need to expand his range and challenge himself.
For a while, that something else was a series of roles in television and movies and cable shows, including a turn as the tribal warrior, Mudo on the nationally syndicated Tia Carrere show,” Relic Hunter.”
In less than a year, Barnes was cast as Benjamin Hardaway on “The Associates”, and thrust into a media maelstrom. For that role, Demore was nominated for two consecutive years for the Gemini award (Canada’s equivalent of Emmy) as Best Lead Actor in a drama series.
“The Associates” lasted two seasons, after which Demore felt he was ready for a astronomical change – moving to Los Angeles.
Barnes arrived in Los Angeles in January 2003. He fully expected to step off the plane and start working; after all, that was always the case. However, this was not the case. What did fall into his lap, however, was an opportunity to work with acting coach, Larry Moss.
Once again, he was in the right place at the correct time. One phone call and he was in. Barnes had no conception how extraordinarily difficult it was to be accepted into a class with the man for whom there was always a one year waiting list.
For the first time in his life, Barnes had an opportunity to study acting. He studied and waited and believed in himself. As a Canadian with no working papers he had to wait for the right project and the right role.
And along came The Unit.
After Barnes’ first audition for David Mamet, Mamet looked up at him and said, what you just did there is what they call demanding the part. You just demanded that part”. Demore’s response was understated to say thre least. “Well, I do want the fragment, David”. And the rest as they say, was history.
Marianne Jean-Baptiste: Without A Tag
I have always enjoyed the performances of veteran actor, Marianne Jean-Baptiste and I must admit that I am particularly fond of the character she plays on the hit CBS series, Without A Brand. However, I have to admit once again, that I didn’t know noteworthy about Jean-Baptiste before I began writing this article.
Born, Marianne Raigipcien Jean-Baptiste on 26 April 1967 in London, England, Jean-Baptiste became a star overnight following the international success of the social drama Secrets & Lies in 1996, becoming the very first black English actress nominated for an Oscar. She also received a Golden Globe nomination for this performance.
Jean-Baptiste is also known for her collaboration with director Mike Leigh on stage in It’s a Immense Big Shame (1993). She is also a writer/composer and has recorded an album of blues songs and serene the musical score for Leigh’s 1997 film Career Girls.
Jean-Baptiste was classically trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London and performed at the Royal National Theatre. However, Jean-Baptiste claimed racism after being excluded from the actor group promoting British talent at the Cannes Film Festival.
She currently stars as FBI agent “Vivian Johnson” on the hit CBS drama, Without a Trace. Her character has a serious heart disease and a young son to raise while detached doing her demanding law enforcement work. In real life, she is married to British ballet dancer Evan Williams and has one daughter.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Information by on Mar 14th, 2011. Comment. 
Many senior citizens have been loyal to their auto insurance companies for years, often decades. Having the same reliable insurance agent and company is comforting. But the auto insurance industry has become more competitive, actively vying for the senior citizen market. It makes sense for senior citizens to gather information to compare their current rates, especially at the time of auto insurance renewal.
Getting quotes for auto insurance is an easy process. With just a few clicks on the computer or toll-free telephone calls, anyone can gather a list that compares auto insurance by services and rates. For senior citizens, who often are on fixed incomes, this can be a very cost-effective exercise, possibly saving them hundreds of dollars during an insured period.
Finding Comparable Rates
Buying auto insurance is like any other important, long-term purchase. The key is to take time to research and shop for the best deal with salubrious auto insurance companies.
The following is a sample of insurance companies and insurance brokers offering auto insurance quotes on the Internet. Many have specific marketing programs targeting senior citizens.
AARP: www.aarp.thehartford.com.
AARP is an advocacy organization for seniors that promotes the interests of people over 50 years conventional. They offer auto insurance to members through The Hartford.
Allstate: www.allstate.com.
Allstate is a well known insurance company. Quotes can be gathered at the above website or local agents can be found in the telephone book and are available to assist in preparing a free quote.
Farmers Insurance Group: http://www.farmersinsurance.com.
Online or in person, a Farmers insurance agent can review auto insurance coverage, help identify potential gaps, and include any qualifying Farmers Auto insurance discounts.
Progressive Insurance: www.progressive.com.
Progressive will provide a quote for their company along with comparables of other auto insurance companies for easy comparisons.
Geico Insurance: www.geico.com.
This company can be accessed online or at one of their many offices. It is easy to get a quote; they offer flexible payment options and competitive rates.
Costco: www.costco.com.
Costco offers membership insurance through Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance.
Autoinsure: www.autoinsure.org.
Autoinsure has a page with helpful insurance information for senior citizens. They can provide quotes from all the major auto insurance companies.
Esurance: www.esurance.com.
A rising star among insurance companies that take pride in stating: “Esurance doesn’t unprejudiced offer reliable insurance coverage, we also believe in educating consumers.” Their online quote process is easy to navigate.
US Insurance: www.usinsuranceonline.com
They will provide multiple auto insurance quotes tailored to specific needs within minutes of filling out their simple short form. It’s easy then to compare them side by side to catch the best prices and coverage.
Car Insurance Rates: www.carinsurancerates.com
Their network of companies and brokers offer a variety of car insurances: Farmers, Allstate, AIG, Nationwide, AARP, Safeco Insurance, Liberty Mutual, MetLife and Mercury.
Every insurance rate: www.everyinsurancerate.com
EveryInsuranceCompany.com is a handy Internet directory to find local insurance companies, insurance quotes and discount insurance rates.
Quote Scout: www.quotescout.com.
This website will provide quotes from a long list of auto insurance companies – literally from “A” to “Z”.
Insurance.com: http://www.insurance.com.
Insurance.com works directly with 15 highly rated car insurance companies in 46 states: 21st Century, Electric Insurance, Esurance Auto Insurance, The Hartford, Infinity, Liberty Mutual, Meritplan Insurance, MetLife Auto Insurance, Newport Insurance, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (The General), Progressive, QBE Insurance, Safeco, Travelers Insurance, and Unitrin Direct.
Keeping Auto Insurance Rates Down
There are ways that senior citizens can take responsibility to control their auto insurance rates. Here are a few suggestions.
According to seniorjournal.com, most of the major auto insurance agencies provide a 5% – 10% discount to drivers beginning at the ages of 50 or 55. However, as a group, drivers 75 and older have one of the highest rates of fatal daytime accidents. Because of this, it’s important that senior drivers stay proactive and involved in keeping their driving skills sharp.
Many states offer an auto insurance discount for mature drivers if a person meets a given age criteria and has taken an approved mature driver safety course. Local colleges and senior centers are good resources to learn about the classes. AARP has local and on-line access to the course. Costco offers its members an online drivers’ safety training course through FirstNet: www.firstnetlearning.com.
Another draw to keep auto insurance rates down is to drive a low-profile car, one that as part of a group has a lower rate due to minimum repair costs, considered safer and less likely to be stolen. Check the Highway Loss Data Institute, www.iihs.org, for the latest related data.
Examine current auto insurance needs and requirements. Changing to higher deductibles or dropping collision or comprehensive coverage for older cars may make sense.
Always ask about discounts when purchasing or renewing auto insurance.
And finally, the best long-term advice: Always drive defensively, discontinue alert and follow the driving laws. Maintaining a safe driving characterize is the best intention to keep auto insurance rates down.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Quotes by on Feb 26th, 2011. Comment.
Auto insurance is expensive for just about everyone regardless of their age, sex or driving record. But for an individual with a record of moving violations or intoxicated driving, auto insurance can be even more expensive and difficult to pick up.
High-risk auto insurance has become much more wide spread over the last few years as more and more people are added to the list of high-risk prospects. Mainstream insurance companies label students, teenagers, drivers over the age of 70, individuals with a dreadful credit rating and individuals with a history of insurance claims as high-risk alongside the traditional high-risk policyholders such as people with a history of DUIs and multiple entertaining violations.
Insurance companies even assign this high-risk label based on the car in question that means that the driver of a sports car should be prepared to pay a higher premium or even have to regain high-risk auto insurance. The insurance company practice of lumping individuals with sports cars and individuals whose license has been revoked into the same category has created a high-risk auto insurance industry on the fringe of the mainstream insurance market.
For this reason, new companies that specialize in high-risk auto insurance (they call it non-standard insurance) have appeared and by shopping around among these new companies, it’s possible for anyone to fetch insurance at a reasonable rate. Of course, the very mainstream companies that created the need for this insurance with their demographic labels also offer high-risk insurance but it will generally be more expensive than the companies that specialize in this sort of policy.
This is a policy that is best found on the Internet since the best and cheapest high-risk coverage is available from smaller corporations that do not enjoy physical offices in every locale they service. If access to a physical office and insurance agent are factors in finding a high-risk policy, it is possible to find a high-risk policy with larger insurance companies such as Allstate but be prepared to pay more for the name recognition of the larger insurance company.
But competition between the small and the mountainous insurance companies is functioning to sustain prices down for high-risk auto insurance. Anyone who fits into the above mentioned categories should still be prepared to pay more for their insurance but they do have plenty of options.
By shopping around and considering the smaller corporations that specialize in this sort of policy it’s possible to find a low rate for high-risk auto insurance.
Sources:
“Finding High Risk Auto Insurance and Non Standard Auto Insurance,” thegeneral.com.
“Where Can I Find Auto Insurance For High Risk Drivers,” onlineautoinsurance.com.
“High Risk Auto Insurance – Information and Quotes,” usinsuranceonline.com.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Information by on Feb 24th, 2011. Comment.
A brief book by Economics Professor Robert Murphy of Hillsdale College, titled, Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy, offers an original and innovative glimpse into possible mechanisms whereby a society in the complete absence of government could furnish the essential and universally needed services of law (including enforcement) and defense against foreign aggression. As a minarchist Objectivist, I would, of course, consider precisely these two areas as the legitimate province of a government, defined as an agency claiming monopoly on the ultimate direction of retaliatory force within a given territory. Nonetheless, in reading Dr. Murphy’s book, I have been challenged to assume the nature of the system that he has proposed and retract it with full honesty of mind, neither accepting nor rejecting any part of his analysis without a clear reason to do so. As a result of this approach, I have produced a series of targeted commentaries, questions, and responses to Dr. Murphy’s specific claims regarding the function of an anarcho-capitalist society. Not all of my comments are definite positions, however; some are genuinely open-ended inquiries on which I would be interested to receive feedback from anarcho-capitalists or anybody with input on Dr. Murphy’s theory. Before I delve into the particulars, however, it is necessary for me to express my compliments for Dr. Murphy’s clear and articulate writing style, extensive application of economic principles and historical parallels, and employment of fundamental premises on which we largely agree. Dr. Murphy’s system, if it is ever actualized in full, would be far worthy in nature to the bloated behemoth of a welfare plot that oppresses Americans and most other individuals today. It is far better to have too cramped government than too distinguished, and all of my disagreements with Dr. Murphy will address the inquire of where precisely to draw the line in the reduction of the State, as opposed to the desirability of such reduction, on which we would both wholeheartedly agree.
Criminal Justice
Dr. Murphy’s first essay, “Private Law,” concerns the application of market anarchy to the resolution of disputes and the curtailment of crime in the domestic realm. One of the most critical questions to ask about the anarchist system is, “What types of punishments would be dealt to criminals, especially murderers, and how would they be enforced? ” Dr. Murphy writes:
“Of course, one of the most basic stipulations in any contractual relationship-whether entering a mall or living in a neighborhood co-op-would be strong prohibitions on execute. In other words, all contracts of this type would have a clause saying, ‘If I am found guilty of murder I agree to pay $y million to the estate of the deceased.’ Naturally, no one would sign such a contract unless he were determined that the trial procedures used to determine his guilt or innocence had a strong presumption of innocence; nobody would want to be found guilty of a murder he didn’t commit. But on the other hand, the procedures would have to be designed so that there were still a beneficial chance that guilty people would actually be convicted, since people don’t want to shop in malls where murder goes unpunished.” (Chaos Theory, 13-14)
I have several concerns about this type of system:
1) What will happen to the application of the death penalty for murder, especially murder of a most unpleasant sort? Could certain contracts include a clause, “If I am found guilty of murder, I agree to be executed by Execution Agency X.”? It is my conviction that fines alone would never suffice to either deter crime or punish the criminal, as the criminal, even after having paid the fine, is free to commit further acts of violence (especially large-scale theft, to secure the lost money). Furthermore, this type of system presumes that the criminal is a rational being capable of recognizing a stout financial disincentive and acting accordingly. However, the more egregious the criminal is, the less rational he is (as, by definition, the initiation of force is irrational, and the degree of initiation of force by a criminal correlates with the degree of his irrationality), and the less he will care about matters that might deter a prudent individual from crime. Often, the only way to deter a hardly sane, rampaging murderer is to cause him to cower in primordial fear for his very existence. If such a deterrent fails, then, again, to prevent further murders, there is no option but to recall this criminal out of existence.
2) What if the criminal (or a foreign army) breaks onto another’s property without signing or agreeing to any contract stipulating what would occur to him/it in the event a crime of any magnitude is committed? What law would such an entity be subject to? Would there be some “universal law of the land” to default to in that case? If so, who would enforce it, or at least authorize its enforcement? And if so, would this agency (even if it merely granted permission for the property owner to retaliate) not need to be remarkably similar to a highly exiguous government?
3) An argument can be made that, by entering somebody’s property, one implicitly accepts the contracts that the property owner associates with it. However, in this case, how does one guarantee that the implied consent was made in an informed manner? What can prevent Owner Y from claiming, “Person X set a foot in my property while wearing a green shirt, which, under the terms I had established, makes him liable for a $1 million elegant.”? (In the meantime, Owner Y had failed to display this clause in prominent public view on the borders of his property, so Person X entered it without knowledge of these terms.) Would not there need to, again, be some universal law of the land to choose which claims of contractual violations are reasonable and worthy of compensation, and which are plainly ludicrous?
Dr. Murphy contends that, under market anarchy, an insurance-like system would ensure payment of damages to individuals violated by crime:
“Under this system, the victims of crime are always paid, immediately. (Contrast this to the government system, where victims usually get nothing except the satisfaction of seeing the criminal placed behind bars.) There would also be incentives for people to behave responsibly. Impartial as reckless drivers pay higher premiums for car insurance, so too would repeat offenders be charged higher premiums for contract insurance.” (Chaos Theory, 15)
Again, this system leaves certain areas commence to contention:
4) Would higher fines matter to command criminals? Would it even matter to them if they had no insurance at all? After all, if monetary payment of premiums is the only thing that would be demanded of them under market anarchy, would they not be able to easily rid themselves of that burden by renouncing insurance altogether? What would then prevent them from finding like-minded souls and establishing large-scale criminal gangs that, instead of relying on mature insurance, would offer mutual protection in exchange for a free hand at thievery and murder with respect to everybody else?
5) What would happen to criminals too poor to pay the inflated insurance premiums resulting from their criminality? How would they be held responsible for their actions? One might suggest the scenario of the insurance company refusing to contain them as its clients. Would, then, crimes by these criminals remain un-compensated on the free market, as no insurance company would offer victims payouts corresponding to their losses?
6) By corollary to #4, is monetary compensation the only indispensable way to reward crime victims and their families, especially in cases of rape, murder, and other irreversible crimes? Can a price tag be placed on human life? Some damages are permanent and irreparable and leave only the satisfaction of revenge against the criminal as a compensation approaching anywhere near the value of what was lost. Currently, the government provides such revenge in the form of criminal punishment such as imprisonment and execution. How would the free market handle revenge-based penalties for egregious criminals?
7) Furthermore, what would happen if the insurance company were to violate the contract it had established and use force against one of its clients to procure his compliance with some arbitrary imposition? Since the insurance company possesses more resources than an individual (and agreements with large enforcement agencies), and would be his sole link to protection under “market law,” what recourse would the individual have against such violations?
Dr. Murphy further elaborates on disincentives to crime under anarcho-capitalism:
“And why would the person with criminal proclivities care about his insurance company? Well, if he stopped paying his premiums, his coverage would be dropped. With no one to underwrite his contractual obligations, such a person would make a very poor customer or employee. People wouldn’t hire him or trust him to browse through a china shop, since then there would be no ‘legal’ recourse if he did anything ‘criminal.’” (Chaos Theory, 16)
Could not, then, this criminal merely determine to follow a life of crime altogether and refrain from any peaceful interactions, except for fellow criminals in his gang? Why would it matter for him if he would not be able to purchase anything or work for anybody? Would he and his fellow mobsters not be able to simply capture what they need? And, given that these criminals have renounced their insurance, how would their victims be protected? Furthermore, if the victims’ own insurance companies were to provide either monetary compensation or some concrete retaliatory capacity, would not the victims’ premiums typically increase? How is it justified for innocents imperiled by crime to nonetheless suffer additional loss of property in the form of raised insurance costs?
Protection of Children
Dr. Murphy proceeds to offer some ideas on how a free market would ensure that children would receive adequate treatment:
“[T]he basic “prohibitions” on parental child abuse and neglect could be stipulated in the marriage contract. In addition to whatever romance may be entailed, a marriage is ultimately a partnership between two people, and prudent couples will officially spell out this design, with all of its benefits and obligations. For example, before abandoning her career to raise a man’s children, a woman may require a financial pledge in case of divorce… In the same way, a standard clause in marriage contracts could define and specify penalties for the depraved treatment of children.” (Chaos Theory, 20-21)
9) Contractual guarantees for the protection of children in marriage are a step in the fair direction; I have myself argued for such a solution previously. Nonetheless, these guarantees will only extend to children of married couples. What shall happen to children born out of wedlock? How, under market anarchy, would any entity concerned with the child’s well-being be able to mandate that the parents marry or, at least, mark some contract which guarantees proper treatment of the child? Moreover, who would be able to protect the rights of the child born out of wedlock, whose parents do not wish to marry or sign a contract of parental obligation to the child? Would those parents be able to inflict abuse and/or neglect upon the child with impunity?
Dr. Murphy continues on this topic by proposing an anarcho-capitalist answer to the issue of abortion:
“The controversial relate of abortion, fair as other conflicts in a private law system, would be handled by competing firms setting policies to best match the desires of their customers. Those people sufficiently horrified by the practice could establish a gated community in which all residents agreed to refrain from abortion, and to report anyone caught performing one.” (Chaos Theory, 21)
10) What would happen to a person living in such a community who committed an abortion and then tried to leave? Would market law provide for clauses that would produce speed from such a community punishable? If such a person escaped successfully, would the market law provide for measures to catch and penalize her?
11) If it were possible to establish gated communities in which abortion would be illegal, would it be possible to also establish gated communities in which abortion would be not only legal but encouraged? Would market anarchy also tolerate the existence of communities which mandated abortions for their members (much like the government of China tries to do today)? How could such communities be resisted in the absence of a government?
12) If market law were able to provide for clauses preventing an individual from leaving a community under certain circumstances, would it be possible for communities to spring up where individuals born there could be forced to cease against their own will? Let us presume, for example, a cult-like gated community based on the premise of self-sacrifice as the good. A child was born to parents who are willing members of this community, yet the child abhors the mentality of self-sacrifice. Would he be forcefully prevented from leaving or from resisting any attempts by community members to compel sacrifices on his section? If not, what agency would protect him? (This is assuming that members of the community are wary of outsiders and train on policing themselves and signing contracts with no external parties.)
13) By extension from #12, what would distinguish such a coercive sacrifice-based gated community from a “mini-state? ” What would prevent the emergence of such entities, which would wholly defeat the very purpose of abolishing the State and instituting market anarchy?
“Community Norms”
Subsequently, Dr. Murphy proceeds to explain how property titles would be enforced in a society where no government exists to recognize them:
“The fear of rogue agencies unilaterally declaring themselves ‘owner’ of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More significant, competition between firms would provide true ‘checks and balances.’ If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained nasty definitions.” (Chaos Theory, 22)
14) The understanding of “community norms” defining property, or anything, for that matter, seems inherently prone to injustice for multiple reasons. There is, first of all, no guarantee that community norms will be in accord with objective justice or objective reason, and this discord is most often the case. Any approach that attempts to set the two as equivalent borders on a variant of “direct democracy,” which, as scholars like Hans-Hermann Hoppe have shown, would only lead to majorities voting themselves the money and property of minorities while resulting in a high rate of time-preference among politicians. Furthermore, let us presume, for example, that a registry firm decides to, under this system, be fully diligent and honest in recording property titles in accordance with what individuals actually inhabit, own, and develop their corresponding properties. This implies that such a company has decided to record the rightful property of Person X, who happens to be an extremely unpopular outcast within the community. Approximately a hundred “squatters” would like to evict Person X from his land so that they might parcel it out amongst themselves, and most people in the community are socialists who agree with them. Would this registry firm lose a substantial clientele and thus be placed at a disadvantage with respect to those registry firms that do not record Person X’s rightful property and are thus more in accord with “community norms”? How, then, is it justified for a firm respecting property and individual rights to be disadvantaged by a system of market anarchy over a firm complicit in the injustice of violating such rights?
Another potential pitfall in Dr. Murphy’s theory comes in the compose of the mumble of arbitration:
“Finally, keep in mind that the ultimate judge in a given case is… the judge. No matter how voluminous the law books, or how obvious the precedents, every case will ultimately depend on the subjective interpretation of an arbiter or judge who must deliver the ruling.” (Chaos Theory, 23)
15) The principles behind this statement are essentially correct; laws are scraps of paper without proper enforcement and an intellectual spirit conducive to their efficacy. However, under market anarchy, there is no single certain system of courts nor is there a hierarchy of appeals courts. Let us presume that two disputing individuals, A and B, have agreed to settle their case via Arbiter C. Arbiter C settles the dispute in favor of A, but B is not content. He appeals the case to Arbiter D, who rules in favor of B. Both C and D are of about equal reputation and stature; they just disagree over a complex matter. Furthermore, A and B, seeking to resolve this dispute, appeal to a multiplicity of high-profile private arbiters who are sharply divided on the issue. If none of these arbiters has positional superiority over any other, whose ruling should be carried out? Furthermore, what would prevent appeals ad infinitum by every dissatisfied party (especially an extremely wealthy dissatisfied party with the capacity to file such prolonged appeals)? Arbitration on a free market is often an effective means of conflict resolution; private businesses have had elaborate systems of market arbitration for centuries. However, in the event of an irreconcilable dispute, I am inclined to believe that there should always be a final court of appeal, i.e., the Supreme Court, which would have the power to stutter an ultimate ruling and close an extremely volatile and contentious case.
16) Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that a single hierarchy of judges or an ultimate court of appeal will emerge on the free market. People will always disagree about who is the most skilled, competent, and authoritative judge, if recent thought divisions in the United States on such matters are any indicator. It is even likely that multiple competing hierarchies would emerge, each sharply differing from the other in terms of fundamental legal principles and practices, in which case the potential of individuals dissatisfied with one hierarchy pushing a favorable appeal through the other is immense. How would those cases be resolved without a massive “judicial power struggle”?
Furthermore, Dr. Murphy’s theory acknowledges an absence of rigidly defined a priori legal structure:
“Now, after we have reached such agreement [market law prohibiting murder] and are procure in our lives, we can let the philosophers and theologians argue about why murder is wrong. Legal scholars offering a priori constructions of just law would certainly have a place in market anarchy; after all, their tracts might influence judges’ decisions. However, in this essay I focus on the market forces that will shape private law, not on the disclose of such law.” (Chaos Theory, 25)
17) Are not market forces themselves contingent on valid law, public or private, and its stringent enforcement, for survival? Countries where prosperous free markets emerged have almost always been based either on a firmly entrenched centuries-old British legal tradition (which proved successful even in East Asian territories like Singapore and Hong Kong) or on policies inspired by the Austrian School of Economics (as in pre-World War I Austria-Hungary, Ludwig Erhard’s West Germany of the 1950s, and Eastern European countries today). In the absence of principled, theoretically-based law, will not a society more resemble the tribal chaos of Somalia (or most of the rest of Africa, for that matter) and simply revert to a Hobbesian situation of nature? If theoretically based law is indeed necessary for functional markets, who will introduce this law into a society and who will make obvious that it is adhered to?
Market anarchy might even pose a threat to the individual’s privacy, however paradoxical this might seem at first glance:
“But there are other factors that an insurance company would take into account when setting premiums, besides past behavior. And one of these factors would undoubtedly be: What sort of weapons does this client keep around the house? After all, if the insurance company is going to agree to pay, say, $10 million the estate of anyone Joe Smith kills, the company will be very interested to know whether Smith keeps sawed off shotguns-let alone atomic weapons-in his basement. Someone who keeps such weapons is much more likely to harm others, as far as the insurance company is concerned, so his premiums will be that much higher. In fact, the risk of a client who kept nuclear (or chemical, biological, etc.) weapons would be so gargantuan that probably no policy would be offered.” (Chaos Theory, 30)
18) This poses an immense privacy concern and a loophole that could be expanded into areas beyond who owns what weapons (revealing which information might not, in itself, be of interest to a given individual). But the weapons example might suffice here. It seems that the following chain of reasoning could be derived from the above passage. Insurance company protection is required for survival under market anarchy (we will grant this premise for the time being). But the insurance company demands information about what types of weapons one owns. Giving away this information might intrude on one’s privacy. Then, by implication, is a disregard for one’s privacy necessary for survival under market anarchy? Furthermore, the disregard for privacy might extend to areas other than weapons ownership. Perhaps a given insurance company might reach to be fervent in whether Person X stockpiles hundreds of radical political flyers in his basement, since political radicals are more likely to be assaulted or even assassinated by angry fanatics. If Person X weak to engage in fights in elementary school, would the insurance company want to know his childhood school record to monitor for “violent tendencies” which might lead to higher payouts by said company? What about the most dangerous privacy violation of them all: required psychological testing for said “violent tendencies”? How would market anarchy contain mechanisms to safeguard against the ubiquitous emergence of such demands as prerequisites for individuals receiving that all-important insurance policy?
Furthermore, Dr. Murphy contends that, under market anarchy, “community norms” might also have an even greater role to play in the treatment of an individual accused of crime:
“There is another difference. Under a government system, someone acquitted on a technicality gets off scot-free. But under the private law system I’ve described, the killer’s insurance company could still increase the premiums they charged. It wouldn’t matter whether their client had been actually convicted of a crime; their only concern would be the likelihood that he would be convicted (of a different crime) in the future because then they’d have to pay the damages.” (Chaos Theory, 31-32)
19) I have a far more pessimistic interpretation of this tendency: it is a potential for people genuinely innocent of crime to be maligned and mistreated if public opinion is opposed to them. Consider, for example, an individual like O.J. Simpson, hated by the majority and presumed guilty of murder, even though the courts failed to find evidence to convict him. Why should Simpson and those in similar positions continue to be placed at an inherent legal disadvantage despite their probable innocence when fair criteria of judgment (as opposed to majoritarian ones) are employed? Furthermore, the case of the simply unpopular individual can be brought up. Let us return to the example of Person X, who is ostracized by a community of socialists. These socialists keep filing unjustified lawsuits against Person X, although Person X is acquitted every time. Would Person X’s premiums increase simply because he is forced to be a defendant such a high number of times, thus increasing his probability of being convicted on any given occasion? How can it be considered justice for those objectively innocent of breaking the law to receive potentially the same treatment as those convicted of violations?
Private Defense
Dr. Murphy’s second essay, “Private Defense,” concerns the provision of market protections against external aggression (initiated presumably by dictatorships or welfare states, since anarcho-capitalist societies are claimed not to take in military expansionism).
Dr. Murphy suggests a mechanism by which such private defense could be accomplished:
“In a free society, it is not the average person, but rather the insurance companies, that would remove defense services. Every dollar in distress caused by foreign aggression would be fully compensated, and thus insurers would seek to protect their customers’ property as if it were their own. Because of economies of scale, coverage for substantial geographical regions would likely be handled through a few dominant firms ensuring standardized pricing and coordinated defense.” (Chaos Theory, 41)
20) Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that these insurance companies would have a financial incentive to fight a protracted war of defense where both sides still have considerable resources at stake. However, if the enemy were to inaugurate a surprise attack, quickly destroying much of an anarcho-capitalist society’s infrastructure, the insurance companies would already have enormous expenses to pay. What would be their motivation to accrue additional expenses by providing further defense and continuing the fight? What would prevent them from surrendering to the enemy, signing some manner of deal permitting the continuation of their existence under the framework of the invading government, and avoiding payment of further damages?
On p. 42, Dr. Murphy suggests a mechanism whereby insurance companies would have increased incentives to actually provide defense services to their customers and thus lessen the possibility that an invader will afflict their customers’ property and bring about the need for the insurance companies to pay out damages. However, this leads to further questions:
21) Let us presume that a neighbor of the anarcho-capitalist society is a dictator analogous to Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly shown himself to be prone to aggression, yet who has never invaded the anarcho-capitalist society. The insurance companies’ analysts predict that the cost of invading the neighboring State and displacing the dictator would be lower than the costs to be incurred in the event that said dictator were to invade. Would market anarchy be able to facilitate pre-emptive strikes against territories with a State? Would neighboring states be sufficiently deterred by the threat of such a pre-emptive strike as to behave in a manner conciliatory to the anarcho-capitalist society?
22) Granting that the free market will eventually develop defensive armies (and likely superior ones to government armies, as mercenary forces and private contractors have shown time and again throughout history), the rate at which such forces emerge is also a point of contention. The growth of services on a free market is almost always evolutionary and gradual, which, in the long term, would lead to services that have stood the test of time. However, what of the short term? How can a freshly emerging anarcho-capitalist society address the threat of dictatorial or welfare states on its borders, posing a military threat now, before competition can yield the optimal retaliatory capacities?
23) Would it not be well-behaved to a complete anarchy in terms of the military to have private competition be fostered within the parameters of a single government? Consider the American government’s current use of multiple competing airplane and tank designers in order to obtain the best available weapons technologies, or its use of private contractors in Iraq. Might it be possible for governments to simply deregulate the military further and render it entirely dependent on mercenaries, contractors, and competing insurance companies while still maintaining that only the government has the authority to either hire these entities to undertake military activities or to simply snarl permits for these entities to carry out military actions within a strictly defined and limited scope? In this manner, a society might reap the benefits of both market competition and a restraining hand on the military’s activities in the form of an ultimate authority on said activities. (The market would, in that case, set prices, by the way, in accord with actual supply and demand, thus addressing Dr. Murphy’s contention that a government monopoly on services inherently disregards their actual worth.)
While a government is theoretically obliged to protect everybody within its jurisdiction, under market anarchy this is not the case. Dr. Murphy comments on markets overcoming the “free rider” plight in defense (i.e. the problem of people who have not paid for the service receiving it nonetheless):
“In the first station, the clients of the insurance companies are not homogeneous, and consequently the market for defense is far more ‘lumpy’ than assumed in standard economic models… In reality, large firms would provide the bulk of revenue for the insurance industry. The policies taken out on apartment complexes, shopping malls, manufacturing plants, banks, and skyscrapers would dwarf those taken out by individuals.” (Chaos Theory, 43)
24) If large entities were to provide far more money to insurance firms than private individuals, would not the incentive to protect said individuals (who require protection the most, given the lack of resources and economies of scale to coordinate it themselves) on the part of the insurance companies be markedly reduced? If so, how would those individuals attain a sufficient degree of safety against foreign aggression (especially if the insurance policies they do have discourage them from owning too many or too great weapons, as Dr. Murphy contended earlier)?
25) This is my principal objection to wholly private defense: Does not every individual, regardless of ability to pay, have a natural accurate to life, liberty, and property, implying that nobody should be able to kill him, enslave him, or deprive him of what slight he owns with impunity? Is it not the right of every individual to receive protection against the initiation of force? In the absence of a government with the obligation to provide this protection to everybody, how can this right be honored?
Dr. Murphy then presents an example of how the Battle of Stalingrad could have been fought under market anarchy:
“Now that we understand the manner in which insurance companies could objectively and quantitatively appraise military success, it is easy to see the advantages of private defense. In a situation comparable to the Battle of Stalingrad, the anarchist community would respond in the most efficient manner humanly possible. Insurance companies would settle the relative value of various military targets, and place bounties on them (for capture or elimination). Individuals left to their own spontaneous devices would try various techniques to produce this ‘service.’ Some might take tanks and hire men to attack the Germans head-on; others might hire sharpshooters to snipe at them from afar. Some might buy mortars. Some might hire propagandists and offer bribes to lure defectors.” (Chaos Theory, 49)
26) This presumes, of course, that all of these individuals would have a compelling self-interest to resist the invaders (especially if they are staunch ideological supporters of free markets, concerned about intrusions upon their liberties). Some individuals are thus principled, and I grant that they would mount such a resistance. But what about men who are not of this sort and resolve to join the invader, or insurance companies who see it as more favorable to do so? Rather than forming coordinated resistance from scratch, would it not be easier for these entities to aid the enemy and work out arrangements for either more lenient treatment or even certain perks once the invading government takes over? Under a government resisting an invasion, deserters to the enemy are found guilty of treason and usually executed, a powerful deterrent against assisting the invader. Would a comparable deterrent exist under market anarchy? If so, what beget would it take? If not, how would traitors and collaborators with the enemy be punished?
Dr. Murphy also comments on certain norms of conduct that would emerge under private defense. On p. 51, he suggests that these norms will lead to “prohibitions on wiretaps and torture,” for example.
27) How would prohibitions on wiretaps be enforced, especially if, as Dr. Murphy claims, “counterintelligence would probably be quite limited”? Let us presume that Firm A has developed a sufficiently advanced wiretapping capacity as to be slightly ahead of the competition. If it successfully wiretapped competing firms or foreign governments, it would not be detected. Even if there were a theoretical capacity to detect the espionage, limited counterintelligence tendencies would prevent it from being fully employed. Thus, what barriers would exist to prevent Firm A from impartial wiretapping everybody with impunity (or conducting other intrusive surveillance)? The case of market anarchy seems remarkably reminiscent of the modern residence, wherein millions of people carry cellular communication devices with built-in cameras and scant guarantees against their ability to recall pictures of any stranger they please, anywhere, at any time.
Dr. Murphy also claims that the threat to anarchist societies from nearby states would be minimal:
“By its very nature, an anarchist society would be a completely harmless neighbor. No State would ever fear attack from an anarchist military, and so there would be no need to preemptively strike it (unlike the Japanese on Pearl Harbor). With no taxation, regulation, tariffs, or immigration quotas, the anarchist society would be of tremendous value to all major governments. They would surely act to protect it from intimidation by a rival nuclear power.” (Chaos Theory, 53)
28) If the very existence of a successful anarchist society repudiates by example the necessity of a State, as anarchists would need to claim for their model to be expedient, would not states, on the contrary, be extremely wary of such societies? If governments in power discover to stay in power, would they also not seek to forcefully address such blatant threats to their existence (even though the residents of the free territories might not intentionally be threatening anyone)?
29) What would prevent governments from allowing the anarchist society to execute for some time, until it amassed vast prosperity, and then, under the modus operandi of so many historical parasites, threatening the anarchist society or attempting to invade it and annex its territory, so as to receive a temporary boost to the invaders’ consumption of the goods that the anarchist society had produced?
30) Dr. Murphy’s argument places him in a double bind. Either a) the anarchist society is completely unwilling to undertake pre-emptive strikes and is thus vulnerable to dictators developing their aggressive capacities to the point where successful invasion of the anarchist society is possible or b) the anarchist society is willing to occupy in pre-emptive strikes against states its citizens view as a threat, in which case said states would not have the sort of friendly relations with the anarchist society that Dr. Murphy describes, and would rather have incentives to oppose such a society or at least to always be on their guard. In either case, a conspicuous military threat to the existence of the anarchist society would exist.
There are further issues that Dr. Murphy’s general thesis causes to arise:
31) What if a given insurance company (especially a large, international one) has two bodies of clients that determine to go to war against each other? How would the insurance company resolve the conflict? What standards would be used to determine liability and which party gets assistance? Would not denying the other party (presumably the one held liable for the violence) assistance be a violation of contract (presuming that the original contract specified that the insurance company would grant any of its clients assistance in the event of war)?
32) War itself is a breakdown of the market and of the trader principle. The free market is based on the premise of the non-initiation of force and voluntary consent of all individuals in the disposal of their lives and property. In war, initiation of force on one or both sides is inherently present. How can a free market, then, suffice to address a situation inherently outside its own basic premise?
33) As an extension to #32, a minarchist would claim that the government ought to allow the free market to provide all goods whose acquisition is entirely consensual. However, the use of force, be it in initiation or in retaliation, is not consensual by definition, from the perspective of at least one of the parties involved. While in the market for all other goods, each individual gets to “vote” with his dollar as to how the market will get to benefit him, while acting to the detriment of nobody else, on the market for force-based goods and services, each dollar an individual “votes” with is a “vote” against somebody else, whether that person be deserving of such a “vote” or not. Should not such “votes” be cast only by agencies that take just desert, as established by fair criteria of Reason, into utmost consideration?
It cannot be too frequently expressed that I fully concur with Dr. Murphy in the vast fraction of his analysis concerning the deficiencies of every government system up to our time. I also fully concur with his desire for a radical alteration of the political status quo, and a radical reduction in the role of government in individuals’ lives. However, I am far from certain that an altogether elimination of government will be wholly devoid of problems, especially since it easily permits the collective to be substituted for the objective. As a means of maintaining objectivity in law and defense, I have suggested tempering and balancing the branches of government dependent on the rule of the majority with those wholly independent from majoritarian paradigms and interests. In “The Fundamentals of Laissez-Faire Meritocracy” and “Post-Veto Authority” I have proposed a model of government dramatically differing from anything in existence up to this day, wherein non-majoritarian branches of government would not have the power to promulgate positive laws, but would be able to undo the damage perpetrated by intrusive majority-approved legislation via the exhaust of unconditional and non-expiring authority to repeal interventionist laws. In further treatises, I understanding to expand on my proposal for an “investmentocracy,” which structures political votes in a government much like shares of a corporation and avoids the pitfalls of majority rule associated with the “one man, one vote” premise. There are numerous clear advantages to the involvement of private agencies in providing law and defense, which is the reason why Dr. Murphy’s theory is credible, scholarly work, far more formidable than current “mainstream” political opinion. The task for future political theorists, however, is to address the concerns about Dr. Murphy’s system that I have raised while maintaining its evident advantages.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Information by on Feb 22nd, 2011. Comment.
Florida’s no-fault and PIP insurance law is designed to give protection on a wider scale and reduce the number of liability suits that can be filed. It is a relatively complicated system that attempts to fix what sounds like a simple problem. The PIP portion of the law stands for “personal injury protection.”
Florida law requires that everyone carries Florida-based car insurance.
The liability portion of this insurance must include minimum liability coverage for $10,000 each on property harm and personal injury protection. It is not a true no-fault insurance because there are times when fault is assessed and the at-fault driver’s insurance must pay for the other person’s damage. Most of the time, it is a case of each one in the accident taking care of his or her respective loss. The liabilities can come with or without deductibles being applied. The essential focus of this law is to mask the medical and other person losses associated with an automobile accident.
The payment schedule is largely preset by state statute.
The insurance claims are handled based on a scale. Actual claim numbers may vary a slight depending on the amount of insurance purchased and the precise amount of the deductible. The insurance will generally pay 80% of all medical costs up to $10,000. This is paid at the rate of 200% or the Medicare rate. The policy provides for a $5,000 emergency room and in-patient physician visits. It includes disability payments of 60% to cover loss of income. The insured can glean 100% of replacement services like yard work, housekeeping and child care. It includes a $5,000 death benefit.
Suits may be filed for the following reasons with some qualifications.
A law suit can be brought to get paid for permanent and significant loss of functions. The same is true for permanent injuries, not including scarring and disfigurement. Permanent scarring and disfigurement are listed as a separate item for a suit. Families can sue for the death of a loved one.
Personal injury protection provides benefits for more than just the driver.
The protection extends to anyone who resides within the insured household. Primarily, this applies only to those who are related to the insured by blood. The law gives a lot of room to the interpretation of the insurance coverage. Overall, it is decent insurance and fills in some of the gaps that cause issues in other policies from other states that are not considered no-fault.
Sources:
http://www.genetlaw.com/auto_accidents/florida_no_fault_insurance.html
http://www.floridanofaultinsurance.info/search/Florida+PIP
Filed under Automobile Insurance Information by on Feb 20th, 2011. Comment.
