Introduction
The debate over whether insurance can justify or fix the damages caused during riots has once again emerged, especially in the wake of recent events. This article delves into the complexities of insurance coverage, the limitations of financial compensation, and the deep-rooted issues that fuel civil unrest.
Insurance Coverage and Its Limitations
Every damage caused by the events of a riot may not be covered by insurance. While insurance can provide some relief to businesses that have suffered losses, it is often limited in scope and does not cover all types of damages, particularly those related to rioting activities.
The 9/11 Example
To illustrate this point, we need only look at the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Insurance payouts for the damages incurred rapidly increased, leading to a worldwide surge in insurance premiums. This financial impact extended beyond the immediate victims, touching everyone's rates.
The same logic applies to riot damage. Even if insurance companies were to pay out for all the damages, the financial burden would be distributed across all policyholders. This would result in increased premiums, making it difficult for some businesses to afford the necessary coverage. The question remains, is this a fair trade-off for the loss of trust in businesses that may never reopen?
Justification of Riots Through Insurance
Several arguments have been raised to justify the use of insurance payouts as a means to rationalize the actions of rioters. However, these arguments miss the broader context of societal values and legal frameworks.
Firstly, insurance payouts do not justify the illegal actions of rioters. Looters and arsonists act against the law, and their actions cannot be legitimized by the possibility of compensation. Secondly, insurance seldom includes riot coverage, which is typically reserved for areas with a history of unrest.
While GoFundMe and similar platforms have arisen to help businesses recover from damages, these are often insufficient and do not replace the need for insurance. The distribution of funds through these platforms is also sometimes problematic, as it can skew the recovery process and may not reach all affected businesses fairly.
The Underlying Issues
The debate over insurance and riots reveals deeper societal issues, particularly the legal prioritization of property rights over human rights. In the US, property rights are often given precedence in the legal system, leading to numerous controversial situations.
For example, it is legal to shoot someone to protect property, although this is rarely justified in court. Furthermore, law enforcement's response to civil unrest is often disproportionate, focusing more on massing police presence than addressing actual incidents of violence. This imbalance serves to exacerbate the issues and fuel continued protests and riots.
Inequality and Police Brutality
Police brutality is another pressing issue that highlights the flaws in our current legal and social systems. Despite clear cases of police misconduct, perpetrators are often not held accountable, and their actions can even exacerbate the very issues they are supposed to address.
The case of George Floyd, where an officer was not immediately charged with murder after kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes, is a stark example of how the legal system can fail to address systemic issues. Additionally, the response of law enforcement to peaceful protests and reports of violence often highlights a bias in prioritizing certain forms of disorder over others.
Conclusion
The question of whether insurance can justify riots is a complex one, with no easy answers. While insurance can provide some relief to businesses, it does not address the underlying issues that fuel civil unrest. The prioritization of property rights over human rights, along with the failure to hold accountable those responsible for police brutality, further exacerbates these problems. As a society, we must address these issues to prevent further unrest and restore trust in our institutions.