I asked you why you should have the right to tell me that I have to have a seatbelt. Your answer was because if I did not wear a seat belt, there was a chance that my body flying out of the car might hit and injure you. If you can justify interfering in someone else's life on the basis of such an improbable event, there is nothing you cannot justify interfering in. You basically believe that it is appropriate for the government to force people to do things because YOU think those things are in that person's best interest, no matter what they think.
There are FAR MORE PEOPLE in the U.S. than in Canada as well.
getting reasonably priced insurance even with preexisting conditions
Except that it is not reasonably priced.
OK, you clearly know nothing about cars and seat belts. You just think it is your business to tell other people how to go about their lives and how to spend their money.
Sorry, if you are close enough to be hit and injured by a body flying through the windshield you have already been hit by something and injured much more severely than that flying body will.
And why would this be YOUR concern?
It is my belief that if the government had not mandated certain safety features, cars would be just as safe or safer and cheaper because of market forces.
The biggest problem with this plan is that as they started buying up coal companies the price of buying up coal companies would go up to the point that it would take considerably more than $50 billion to do the job.
I generally get parts for my (more than 10 years old) cars from an auto parts store for less than the dealer charges. My mechanic does the same thing. For that matter, so do some of the dealers around me.
You are not completely wrong. Except that the current administration wants to encourage the use of electricity to power vehicles BECAUSE they believe that will make vehicles unobtainable for the masses.
Actually, it is not true that PEOPLE have decided that they prefer buying more car. It is government regulation that has made cars such as the VW Beatle obsolete (for example, an original VW Beatle only gets about 22 mpg which is less than the goal for large trucks in 2012--although that is measured by government standards, not real-world usage). There are other government regulations which would drive up the cost of a VW Beatle if it was brought to market today.
Basically what Audi is doing by instituting this plan is announcing to the world that they are building their cars to be obsolete in two years. If Audi was building quality cars they would have announced that they have entered a partnership with AT&T to put an adapter in their car that will be compatible with cellphones on the AT&T network for the next 10 years (or more). As it is, they have indicated that they are building fancy pieces of junk that you won't want two years from now.
Well the large reason for that is that Ukraine BELIEVED the rest of the world when they promised to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in order to convince Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. As a result of that belief, the Ukrainians don't have much of an army.
You really think that people in an academic setting have more of a "get-it-done" mentality than people in business?
Wow, you really believe that? You believe that a man who as a teenager helped the Nazis loot the Jews of Europe before killing them (after having been taken in by a non-Jewish family so that he was not killed by the Nazis along with his Jewish parents) only does what he does "out of necessity".? And its not like that childhood action was not followed up by similar behavior as an adult (not as blatantly evil, but with a similar disregard for how his actions negatively effected others).