[drivingmenuts]

This reads like the premise of a bad movie. When I hit the part about requiring insurance, I heard the ghost audio of a record screech.

Yes, he's trying to solve a real problem. This ain't the solution.

Requiring insurance for drivers is one thing - being able to afford a car presumes some ability to afford insurance. However, his solution requires insurance just to exist.

That's not workable.

[RobinHanson]

If we've set the fine levels right, someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

[drivingmenuts]

Perhaps the author read Terry Pratchett because this whole thing smells a lot like Ankh-Morpork. You pay a certain amount to the Thieve's Guild and you're safe for a year.

> someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

Bypassing the "won't pay" for now - if someone can't pay, they're a liability? Then what? Let them rot?

A very large number of people live in conditions where they are unable to affect the overall crime levels. Sure, they can keep them from going up by one, by not committing a crime themselves, but they don't have any control over externalities.

All that aside, it's very easy step to the idea that if one doesn't have crime insurance, that, in and of itself, is a crime. This already happens with car insurance.

This is a stupid idea that taxes a person just for existing and if they can't pay, could possibly wind up making them a criminal themselves.

It's basically a cheap shot at the poor.