I love how you start off your response with setting the parameters of any "discussion" between us as a failure. I don't know how you got the idea I am already irate. Seems like an assumption, something you asked me not to do towards you yet you started out your response by making an assumption. I am not irate. Maybe you assume that because rather than use government euphemisms(euphemism - the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant) to describe the unethical behavior of the agents of corporations known as government and the people like yourself who support them I use the actual, and accurate adjectives to describe what they do to humans who were ALL born free on this earth in order to coerce these humans to give up their ability to self govern and freedom through intimidation tactics and violations of the non aggression principle.

As far as you not saying either I or the cop was a bad guy. Maybe you didn't outright say it, but presenting to me that somehow I did ANYTHING wrong when I wasn't meeting the elements of the legal claim he made against me that I was "Driving while license suspended 3rd degree". Instead you changed the subject to something about me having insurance to be able to pay for damage to a vehicle and or family that I hypothetically run into while I'm traveling in my automobile. Nowhere in the interaction did I cause any damage to anyone's property so why was this even brought up? I gather it's because I was cited for not having insurance. Why did I need to prove to this armed gang member that I have insurance when there is no reason for it other than he is enforcing his will on me because he is backed by the monopolized force of the state? I caused no damage to any of his or government property why does he need to see it and if I don't produce it why does he think it's ok to yet again use the monopolized force of the state to to initiate an extortion attempt in order to either gain my compliance or to take my resources(money) from me against my will when I had not done anything to anyone else?

You never once questioned whether it is ok for another human to use threats of violence in order to establish compliance or cooperation with other humans who do not agree to enter into any contractual agreements with others? This is what the police officer did yet you seem to put both of us on the same playing field. I didn't violate the non aggression principle but he did. Why are you ok with this for the lack of a better term, "bullying"?

Then again you go back to the whole insurance thing. I'm not sure why but I guess you don't like dealing in reality but rather the fear of hypotheticals that the government with all it's regulation in reality can't prevent. I'll play the game...in your scenario of you and others being on a sidewalk and being killed/maimed by the user of an automobile. First off YOU and the people on the sidewalk took a calculated risk by deciding to leave the sanctity of your home and venture out into the wilds of the earth that you no longer have control of. Rather than assume this risk for yourself you want to put it off on others. So back to your scenario. Did the person veer onto the sidewalk and cause damage to other humans on purpose or as an accident? Was the person's intent to cause damage or was the entire thing a great big accident. That matters because one is an aggression and a violation of nature's law, the other is a freak accident no different than a tree alongside the road your hypothetically standing on falling and killing/maiming yourself and others utilizing the sidewalk. In the later scenario who is responsible for paying for the hospital bills if a tree alongside the road were to fall and create injuries and the hospital bills and other expenses you brought up. Your life would be forever altered yet who would be there to cover these bills and try to make it right? Do you see my point? Seems to me that since I take the risk that my automobile and myself my be damaged when I go out on the public roads seems to my I should be insuring myself not slight chance I might actually cause damage to someone else's person or automobile. In the first scenario where the person hypothetically drove the car into you on purpose that is a much more of a problem than just damage to be paid for. That individual does not have the ability to self govern and the damage he/she caused should be the least of our concerns. That being said yes they should be responsible to cover any damage they caused accident or not. That is why it would be smart to attain some sort of insurance or way to compensate those that you have damaged. Some individuals cannot afford the regulated insurance hence "uninsured motorist" policies. If you're that worried about that scenario then maybe you should also purchase some coverage to make sure your property and body can be repaired in case the other person didn't have the resources to purchase insurance. How can someone short on resources get insurance if these policy enforcers are constantly extorting their resources when they have done nothing wrong simply because they didn't provide proof of insurance. If a person doesn't have a way to pay then my guess is generous members of the community will rally around the injured parties and as long as they are upstanding members of the community and treat others well, my guess is this would be taken care of. I know this first hand, I have a severely disable child. If I had to rely on the state to help me with him I would have failed miserably. It was my community who voluntarily supported me and my son because they saw that I wasn't a deadbeat. This is how community works but the government corporations would not have you believe this, yet it is observable all around us everyday of the year. So in my conclusion to your hypothetical scenario if the driver violated the non aggression principle in either a voluntary or use of force based system of governance that part would be handled. In addition the scenario of it being and accident is also handled. Except of course if the accident is the tree scenario then instead of government possibly helping fix the problem you'd solely have to rely on those of your community to help you get back on your feet. I'd trust the good people of my community any day over government agent that by nature of their job display poor ethics as the daily violate the non aggression principle. Something if anyone else of us did we would be thrown in their dungeon. If in 2 out of the 3 scenarios the self governed outcome has almost an identical outcome as the governed by thugs option(although the voluntary option would likely cost much less in the end) yet the 3rd option only the voluntary and self governance option takes care of the health problems incurred, I ask again why are you advocating and or supporting this clearly unethical governing body?

I had already stated in my initial response to you that roads are paid for by gas taxes in this country. If people have converted to not support the big oil companies I would commend them on this not act as if they are hurting humanity by not doing their fair share. In fact they are subverting the control over us that is exhibited through the energy they have made us so reliant on. There are cheaper and even free and cleaner sources of this energy but they distract us and divide us so instead of questioning them you are questioning me, a free man who did nothing to anyone else. If the people driving those cars become so many that the roads aren't being paid for then my guess is they would figure out a new way to contribute. Nobody wants to cause damage to their automobile using them on public roads that are not kept up and likely to damage property. My guess is in a voluntary society these people would figure out how to repair roads to be able travel on freely and keep themselves and others safe on the roads(not one person I have ever met has had a death wish and doesn't do things to prevent death or injury to property or themselves). Plus if it was done voluntarily again chances are it would be massively less expensive than when the corporation known as government does it.

As far as offering your thought, it is appreciated. Unfortunately you haven't presented anything new. Every square inch of known inhabitable land on this planet falls within the imaginary boundaries of one of these corporations calling itself a government. So to think any individual with the sense to figure out how to put together coherent thoughts, create, manage and produce content questioning all of this hadn't considered the most basic aspects of the government system controlling or at least trying to control ALL humans on earth seems a little disingenuous to me. If we are to actually discuss things and progress as a society we must go beyond the accepted programming we receive in our government run institutions of "learning". We must also be able to focus on the subject at hand which was the ethics of the trooper who violated the non aggression principle with his threat of violence and force to coerce me to stop my travels and fall under his temporary arrest instead of changing the subject to discussing hypotheticals that while is a valid subject that does need discussion it was not relevant to the subject at hand because I did not cause any damage nor was I "driving" my "motor vehicle" which is what would cause me to fall under their jurisdiction and code requiring me to have and display my proof of insurance on demand.