[KennyBlanken]

They have to include the anti-theft systems in the vast majority of other countries. They made the conscious choice to save a few dollars per car not including it in US models...with predictable impact on US society...because it wasn't required here. Because car companies have fought legislation to mandate it, via lobbyists.

How would you feel if in the rest of the world kids pajamas were made of fabric that didn't burn easily / melt onto skin, but in the US due to lax regulation, companies were making them out of cheaper fabric that is practically tinder and easily melts to the skin, but slightly cheaper?

Would you still bleat about how it's "American politics" and not reprehensible, immoral cost-cutting?

[maeil]

> How would you feel if in the rest of the world kids pajamas were made of fabric that didn't burn easily / melt onto skin, but in the US due to lax regulation, companies were making them out of cheaper fabric that is practically tinder and easily melts to the skin, but slightly cheaper?

This kind of thing is standard practice in almost every industry. Products are generally manufactured according to safety standards that are required in the country of sale. This is especially prevalent in cars. Things like airbags, crumple zones, even seatbelts. Plenty of countries where cars are sold without backseat seatbelts.

Id also be genuinely interested in a source for your claim of immobilizers being required in the "vast majority" of other countries as my Google skills are failing to find it. Furthermore, in the other countries where one is not required, has this ommission led to the same "predictable impacts on society" there?