Here are some more stats on the safety risks imposed by SUV’s:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/rest_of_rf_seri.html

There is dispute on the point, but some say that they don’t add to their own driver’s safety at all–they just constitute a menace to others.

Actually, this is hilarious.

The entire problem we have, with relation to oil, is not a libertarian problem, but a socialist one.

One reason why large cars sell well is, well, people want safe vehicles.

Socialists have long advocated “safety regulations” and “emissions regulations” that are in conflict with each other. On one hand, they want cars that one can drive at 65 MPH into a concrete wall, after flipping it several times down a steep bank, and walk away from without even a sprain.

That requires lots of airbags, crumple zones, safety systems, bigger brakes, etc. — which add weight. Lots of weight.

On the other hand, they also want cars that get 85 miles per gallon. Which cannot generally be done without taking weight *away.*

At the same time, they want cars that are “family cars” and that accomodate the average 4 to 6 person family.

So basically, the left has been demanding that the laws of physics be broken — cars that are super rugged, spacious and capable of carrying a family around, yet are also small and fuel efficient.

It doesn’t work that way.

You have a few options:

1) Large cars that are safe — like SUVs and minivans — which get 20 to 25 MPG.

2) Small cars that do poorly in high-speed crashes — yet get great mileage — like most compact cars on the market.

3) Medium cars that aren’t spacious enough, aren’t powerful enough, and that have middling safety regulations that get middling mileage (most cars out there today).

4) Spacious large and light cars with lots of space, great mileage, and poor safety.

The problem isn’t that libertarians have advocated “letting people buy the cars they want” — it’s rather that socialists such as yourselves are demanding the physically impossible.

Cars that are small and fuel efficient are, by design, less safe in a collision. And surprisingly enough, people don’t want less safe vehicles. They’re willing to pay a fuel premium for safety.

The only way you can get people to buy unsafe smaller cars is to force them into it — and your whole justification then becomes “your safety and that of your family will simply have to give way to my political agenda.” Not surprisingly, that message isn’t going to sell.

I’ve long believed that the Left is willing to give the general populace a chance to be persuaded to do the right thing but only up to a point; if the unwashed don’t take the hint and see the wisdom of a certain policy – as defined by the progressives among us – then the correct policy will just have be imposed….ahh the mantra of the Left: “Trust us – we know what’s best for you”

As for Chavez; here’s a nonpartisan take:

http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/05/18/05

Moreover, as I’ve frequently blogged here, the rise of bigger cars on the road is not something that can be combatted by “changing norms” or persuasion. As more people get SUV’s, the remaining cars are more vulnerable. It’s an arms race.

And all of this is, somehow, the libertarians’ fault?

Real lawyerly thinking there.

…that mirrors my sentiment that I’ll be more impressed with all the liberals/progressives and their incessant call for a more socialized health-care system when they quit what they’re doing, go back to school, study medecine and then provide said health care at a price we can all afford.

…and thanks for your reference to Joseph Schumpeter – he and Milton Friedman are the two greatest economists of our times; that Keynes is more widely known than Schumpeter is a disgrace