mandatory purchases, is it Communism?

How can our state and local governments claim to be democratic when they FORCE by LAW for people to buy certain products or services from corporations or companies?
If the government said that ALL carnivorous persons had to buy at least 10 pounds of beef a week or that vegetarians had to buy 5 bushels of corn just because the cattle industry or farmers association lobbied our ELECTED officials (lobbied, BRIBED, paid-off, cotributed to campaigns, all the same) then we'd have to do it. If you cant afford it you pay a fine and/or go to jail. Isn't that communistic? Well insurance companies have done it. (in most states)
Now I don't want to hear a bunch of conservative rif-raf about how uninsured people cause insur. rates to increase, THATS NOT the issue. It's about the gvmt. telling us that we 'HAVE TO' buy these services, right now it's insurance what's next? food, clothes, medical plans? But hey, if you ain't got any money then maybe you need to be in jail out of the richer man's way.
In the future, please state your objection so we can read the question and know what you are talking about. It wasn't until the end of the question that I finally found that you were probably talking about automobile insurance. If not, this is going to sound silly.

The reason the government (in this case, the State government at the insistence of the Federal government) can force Americans to purchase automobile insurance as a prerequisite for receiving a drivers' license is because you are requesting the right to use a publicly financed and built and administered road. You are using a facility provided by the State, and the State requires that you take action to make certain the State does not have to take financial responsibility if you are involved in an accident and as a result one or more parties are injured or bankrupted. Also, under the Federal constitution, interstate highways are not only conveyances but they are conduits (gee, I is smart to use conduit in a sentence!) for interstate commerce.

You do not require a drivers' license if you are driving exclusively on private property.

Anyways, this in my opinion is why the State has he authority to require you to purchase insurance to use a public facility. I hope this helps.
It sounds as though you are referring to auto insurance. Yes, it does sound draconian for the government to tell you what you must purchase. If you question that, they will remind you that driving is a privilege and not a right. Regardless of the fact that today's modern society, at least here, requires that most people be able to drive in order to survive.

I suppose, conversely, you could look at the flip side of the issue. If you were injured by another party in an accident and neither one of you has auto insurance, who pays for your hospital bills and repair/replacement of your car?
Your example is authoritarianism, not Communism.
I agree with you to a point. The law does require us to purchase auto insurance. But it does not tell us who we have to purchase that insurance from. Personally, I feel that if it is required by law, then affordable coverage should be provided by the state, particularly to those who cannot afford it. And by the way, I am a conservative.
Good point, if not to favor the rich but is for the good of everybody then maybe it is ok, just maybe. Trouble is in a capitolist society, company's get greedy when they have a captive audience. Like the oil company's
Our government is meant to act in the best interest of the people, and in situations where the people cannot act, but it would be in their best interest to do so, the government must intervene as long as they don't violate any of our rights. Requiring people who own cars to also have insurance is the right of each state to do. Not all states have this requirement. There is no where in the constitution where you are guaranteed a right to not have to follow the rules of your state. Any right not spelled out in the constitution is reserved to the people, and the states. If you don't like it, campaign to have your state change it, or move to one that doesn't require it.

Another example of Government acting when the people cannot: defense. As a state, or local government, we cannot adequately raise an army for proper defense. Since security is important to all citizens, the Government must then be responsible for maintaining an Army.
I agree with you, but its not communism. That is Capitalism at its finest. Insurance companies trying to make a profit, and politicians who don't mind screwing a few people to line their pockets with money.
This government hasn't worked for the working class in a long time, but America seems to be happy with the status quo, they keep electing the same individuals.
To: Ericsson
Yes, it is for there own self interest, but shouldnt the government work for their citizens, and for those services they feel are necessarry, provide and make sure there are no price abuses.
Government is in the business of providing services that individuals cannot or would not buy on their own. If they came around with a collection box for a stinger missile battery, would you donate? Would you be one of the concerned citizens that put money towards buying radar guns so the police can catch speeders? Government forces you to contribute to those things.

So one more thing that government forces you to contribute to is the shared risk of automobile operation. Actually, you're only forced if you have a car; otherwise, you can avoid this use tax. Cars are dangerous so we all have to pool our money to protect those who are hurt by them. And since you can't possibly tell who is going to be hurt (and it may be you), it's a pretty decent thing to do.

The only question is who administers the program. Should the government administer it like Medicaid? Or should private companies compete to administer it so as to (hopefully) bring the costs down? In this case, the government chose private administration. That doesn't make it any less of a government function or any more authoritarian than anything else that government does.

So, no, I don't agree that there's anything wrong with mandatory auto insurance. In fact, it makes me kind of glad.
Huh -

Its OK for the government to tell you that you must have a drivers license I presume. It OK for them to tell you not to murder someone I presume. Well, in my book it's OK for them to tell EVERYONE they have to assume their OWN responsibility for their OWN actions - I know, an idea that is completely foreign to liberals.

It's simply an example of people not having the intelligence or lack the common decency to understand you are socially irresponsible to not protect yourself or others, (just like a speed limit is imposed by the government) so the government has to step in and make you do what you should already have enough sense to do on your own, but apparently in your case, don't.
If you're talking about home owner's insurance, you don't have to carry it if your home is paid for.
If you're talking about auto insurance, you're damn right you should be covered. Driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. Have you got enough money lying around to pay for someone's medical bills and to replace their vehicle if you cause a wreck?