Quote:
|
Thank you zukiphile, for bringing up the obvious fallacy of the "science" behind insurance rates.
|
Certainly, though I do not want to overstate the critique.
Actuaries do real work and what they do does carry a predictive value. However, they will be the first to tell you about the limits of what they do.
If out of a group of 1 million people who have been screened for a half-dozen traits, the actuary concludes that 15,000 of them will contract lung cancer prior to age 65, his prediction may turn out to be a bit low or a bit high, but he is probably about right on the number. Insurance companies don't need individual predictions; they just need to be able to forecast the future cost of claims made by insureds.
That isn't anything like an individualized prediction that Al Norris will get lung cancer before the age of 65.
Consequently, using even sound actuarial methods to effectively convict individuals of a pre-crime involving a firearm is not a sound use of those methods.
On the other hand, if you are standing in front of the judge because you've been convicted of armed bank robbery, you have received due process and are the subject of an individualized determination about whether you should have several civil rights available to you in the future.