yea,as I thought, your all bark.
as for your interpretation of reality, good luck.
As,I have not caused ANY damage to you or anyone else's boat. until I do you are mearly blowing smoke.
but for the sake of argument let's say I sink your boat, you Atty I'm sure will be happy to take your money. but he cannot extract from me that which I do not have. and you would be SOL. no tangable assets no money, etc. there are legal limits that basically shield the "poor " if you think you could take my boat,so what I paid $2000 for it 10 years ago.
face it, it would be a loosing battle for you,so you can get as twisted as you want, I'm still laughing in your face.
So, continue to attempt to portray me in any way you wish, but reality is you'll sadly come out the lesser.
If I was of substantial means and had anything of value, I would as a matter of good judgment, insure it against such a possibility, but the fact is I don't so I won't.
harsh but true.
You still don't get it, do you ? It is mentality like this that will lead to the mandatory boat insurance. I am not saying that you have caused any damage or that you are likely to do so in the future. However, if you do - you better be prepared to make the other sailor whole, whether you have insurance or not. Why ? Because it is YOUR responsibility (assuming you are at fault, of course).
The problem with your argument and approach to this issue is that it does away with responsibility, both financial and moral. And that will inevitably lead to the government imposing mandatory insurance, because we as a society chose to ignore or forget what is right and wrong and rather do what we as individuals want.
If one chooses to get on the water where there are other people's boats, one must understand and be prepared for the risk that there can be potential damage to other boats. There are several ways to deal with this risk. If you are very rich, you can "self insure" and be prepared to compensate the other side from your own pocket. If you are not wealthy, then liability insurance is your best friend. To take the approach of being "judgement proof" is pathetic, not to mention irresponsible and immoral.
In the situation you mention, if someone was to damage or sink my boat and it was their fault, I would certainly pursue a judgement on the person and go after all their assets, including the boat. It may not be worth much, if anything, but still as an asset it can be seized in most jurisdictions. And that to me would mean that at least I prevented similar misfortune to others. Yes, I will not gain anything financially but at that point it is not about the money. Rather, it is about what is right and what is not. I may not get compensated for my losses but I will make sure that the reckless behavior and devil-may-care attitude ends there. And that at point, it does not really matter how much it will cost me, as it really is no longer about the money but rather principle. Old school stuff.
So, you may call it "blowing smoke" or "bark" or anything else that makes you feel comfortable but to me it is a matter of principle and I will stick with it no matter what. I have been raised on those values and I am not about to change.