The Insurance Cost Crucible

Over just the past 2-3 years, the cost of government-mandated car insurance “coverage” (more about the reasons for the air fingers quote marks shortly) has gone up by more than 25 percent, on average. I’m paying three times what I was paying for a liability-only policy that doesn’t cover anything – as regards my old, paid-for truck. The coverage applies, hypothetically, to damage I might cause someone else’s vehicle rather than any damage to my own.

Note the might.

I italicize the word to initiate a few additional words about this very strange business we’ve all gotten used to of being forced to pay for damage we might cause. It is an interesting concept. Almost anything one does – other than lie quietly in bed – might end up causing damage.

If this “might cause damage” business is the accepted basis for government forcing people to buy coverage, then there are almost limitless possibilities for additional such requirements. It could be logically argued – using the logic government uses – to require every man capable of throwing a punch to buy Fist Insurance, since he might (and could) punch someone in the mouth.

Who is going to pay for those lost teeth?

Its not silly. It’s serious. Because it follows. The government says people who own cars must buy at least liability coverage because they might run into someone else and that could cause damage. Well, how is it logically not the same thing to argue that a man might punch someone else in the face? How is it that any man capable of throwing a punch is allowed to walk in public without having purchased coverage to pay for the damage he might cause with his fists?

The only sane answer is that government hasn’t gotten around to that yet.

Government-mandated liability insurance doesn’t just force us to pay for the damage we have not caused but might. It also forces us to pay for the costs government imposes on new vehicles that we do not buy – and also the choices made by other people as regards the vehicles they choose to buy. This circles us back to the theme of this article, which is how government forcing us to buy liability insurance will soon force many of us out of our vehicles.

Why has the cost of liability-only coverage gone up by so much over the past 2-3 years? The main reason is the cost of repairing (or replacing) the cars made during the past2-3 years. Every new vehicle costs thousands more to buy than it did 2-3 years ago and some models tens of thousands more. One example of the latter is the 2025 Dodge Charger EV, which replaced the Charger with an engine. The latter stickered for about $33k just two years ago (2023). The 2025 Charger EV stickers for $57,995.

The proliferation of $50,000-plus EVs over the past 2-3 years has hugely increased potential liability costs and it is not just the EVs. Many new/recent-vintage vehicles have shockingly expensive bits and pieces, such as LED headlight and tail-light assemblies that can cost hundreds each to replace. Break two of these, plus the enormous gaping fishmouth plastic grill that most new vehicles have – as can happen in a minor accident – and the repair costs can amount to thousands of dollars.

Government-mandated “safety” equipment that relies upon arrays of little cameras and sensors built into the front and rear ends (and windshield glass) of new vehicles is both fragile and costly to replace when damaged.

Someone’s got to pay for that. Even if you didn’t break it.

Guess who?

So, because other people have chosen to buy a new vehicle laden with expensive features both desired by them and mandated by the government, the people who chose not to buy them are forced to pay for the damages they might cause to them. The effect of this rip-tide is that people who are trying to keep the cost of owning and driving down by driving older, less-expensive vehicles and having liability-only insurance are dragged along by the cost-choices of others as well as by the costs imposed by government.

Everyone else pays more, too.

But the distinction here is that when someone chooses to buy a new vehicle they have chosen – morally speaking – to assume the higher costs associated with owning it. This ought arguably to include the higher costs of fixing/replacing it. If there were even a whiff of fairness to this forcing people to buy at least liability coverage, those who chose to increase their own liability potential ought to pay for that. Not the people who very deliberately chose not to increase their own potential liability costs.

Limiting the liability for damage that might be caused to someone else’s vehicle by you to $30,000 would protect people who can’t afford to spend $50,000 (or more) on a vehicle from having to pay more to cover the costs of other people’s choices. Affluent people’s choices. There is something off about the government forcing people who are not affluent to absorb the costs of the choices made by affluent people.

Of course, the government understands perfectly well that forcing people to buy insurance is a brilliant way to force people out of their cars without actually passing a law that says they’re not allowed to own or drive a vehicle.

In particular, people who are not affluent. When the cost of a basic, liability-only policy becomes more than they can afford, what will they do? One of two things.

The first being they give up driving. But this is not just obnoxious, it is not viable. Not without completely changing their manner of living. As by moving from the suburbs or the country to the city and living a Proletarian Life – which isn’t very appealing. For many, this isn’t feasible, either – even if they wanted to live the Proletarian Life – as their jobs are not accessible or doable without a car. What are they gong to do? How are they going to pay for their Proletarian apartment in the city?

This bring up the other thing. Noncompliance.

Stop paying but keep on driving. Why not? It is no moral sin to ignore the government’s demand that we pay to “cover” the cost of damages we have not caused. Arguably, it is morally righteous to refuse to pay such costs as it amounts to punishment for something we did not do, which is inherently wrong. Obviously, if a person’s actions result in damages, then that person owes a debt. But it’s bizarre and vicious to say a person whose actions have caused no damage to anyone must pay up. Over and over and over. Year after year after year..

Yes, of course, the government will go after those who do not pay for the damage they haven’t caused and some of the latter will pay in other ways when they are caught. But if enough of us practice noncompliance, it becomes difficult to enforce compliance. Prohibition is an example of the power of noncompliance; so also the 55 MPH highway speed limit. The government enforced it for 20 years but it became unenforceable because of widespread noncompliance, which made it obvious that Drive 55 was ridiculous and that punishing people for driving faster was vicious.

It is just the same as regards the viciousness of forcing people who do not want to pay for the damages they have not caused to other people’s $50,000 (and up) vehicles. Limiting liability to $30,000 would serve to curb such costs – because those who choose to assume them would be obliged to pay them.

If not, then it’s time for noncompliance. It beats Hell out of waiting for the bus.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.