But you get enough people killed through ineptitude and then people start wanting the government to step in.

Good points, and I don't disagree that it is of course people who demand this intervention that causes it to become law in the first place (thats how our system works after all, for the most part), but there's no reason people can't demand the opposite as well, which is the good thing about our system.

they are also entitled to the same protection the government should afford them as anyone else.

That's assuming we all agree that the role of government is to provide this protection, and many don't. This is one point I agree with Republicans on (traditional ones, not these ass-backwards ones currently in office) in regards to limited government. The federal government should be a limited body, focusing on national defense, and federalism should apply for most if not all other aspects. Insurance is, in my opinion, *NOT* one of these aspects and should be left to the private sector, lassie fare style. Insurance companies who insure frequent and expensive offenders have their rates go up, and lose their business to more efficient companies who are more careful and can offer lower premiums. Of course, there will also be a niche market company for those high offenders, provided they pay the higher premiums. This system works for credit institutions and banks, and yet its not good enough for insurance?

Believe me, I understand your angle, and I totally see that it looks like I was throwing out the "idiots" argument the way people throw around "support the troops" or "don't burn the flag", but I assure you there has been at least some semblance of internal debate over the subject

So yeah, enough of the deep, enthralling discussion of politics on a *gaming* message board (I hate it when discussions go this way)

-DSR