Everyone knows the cost of "covering" a vehicle – that is, the cost of the insurance everyone who owns a vehicle is forced to buy – has outpaced even the cost of inflation, which is powerful evidence that something other than the devaluation of the purchasing power of the currency we're forced to pay for things with is to blame.

That something other is, of course, the cost of new vehicles – even if you don't own one.

The average price paid for a new vehicle is around $15,000 higher than it was just three years ago – bringing the average price paid for a new vehicle to about $50,000 – and someone's got to pay for that. Meaning, everyone is paying more for the anticipated and actual costs of repairing/replacing these much-more-expensive vehicles. Including those of us who have not bought one. We're paying more to the insurance mafia because the mafia does not want to lose money on the payouts it may (and will) make to repair/replace vehicles that cost $50,000.

So we're all paying more for that.

But why should we have to? Put another way, no one has to buy a $50,000 vehicle (let alone an $80,000 EeeeeeeeeVeeeee) just as no one has to buy a $500,000 house. This is not to say no one should – assuming they want to and assuming they have the means. We are not envy-eaten Communists, after all. Well, some of us aren't. But the point here is that in a free country, people ought to be free to buy whatever they want and are able to pay for. But what's happening is people who do not want it are being made to pay for it, via government-mandated insurance that enables the insurance mafia to offload the potential and actual costs incurred or that might be occurred by others onto the shoulders of those who did not choose to incur them.

Note the italics.

Most of us need to have a vehicle and that means we have to buy insurance because the government has decreed we have to buy it as a condition of being allowed to use its roads (this idea that the roads are "public" is as silly as the idea that a restaurant forced to disallow smoking within is "private" property). The argument is that we might cause damage/harm to others and so we have an obligation to indemnify against this possibility. It is an obnoxious (to freedom) idea that imposes punishments prior to any harm having been caused because some people fear that harm might happen and that those who cause it might not pay the cost of it. Freedom requires the acceptance of risk, even if harm is sometimes the result. It just means harm isn't imposed on all, particularly the bulk of people who don't harm anyone.