The SUV Hysteria Continues:
A Response to Jeff Riggenbach
by Karen De Coster
Are Sport Utility Vehicles murderous gas-hogs that support terrorism? Or simply another option for American drivers?
In the February 2003 issue of Liberty, Jeff Riggenbach presents what he argues is a libertarian case for bashing SUVs. I couldn’t disagree more. I find it peculiar that someone can back into libertarian reasoning from what appear to be personal conclusions about the lifestyles and preferences of the masses.
To begin, Riggenbach scoffs at Jacob Sullum’s claim that consumers think SUVs are “roomier, more comfortable, and safer than lighter, smaller cars.” To Riggenbach, “comfort is a matter of opinion.” Indeed it is! Sullum merely points out that consumers are making individual choices based on their subjective opinions of comfort, whereas Riggenbach proceeds to tell us how he finds Audis more comfortable than SUVs, as if that is some defining statement of authority.
Then Riggenbach trots out the hysteria-ridden rollover argument that has been manipulated to extremes by the Left and authoritarian Right. The contention that SUVs are more likely to roll over is a pointless comparison used and abused by the SUV haters. To use Riggenbach’s own reasoning that he uses in comparing the “roominess” of big vs. small vehicles, if bigger, taller vehicles are compared to smaller vehicles, then, ipso facto, the bigger and taller vehicle will indeed be more prone to rollovers in the case of careless driving. If we were to repeatedly draw upon this fetish, shouldn’t we take the anti-SUV movement so far as to include delivery trucks, step-vans, commercial trucks, and even consumer vans?
Any number of comparisons can be made between vehicles both big and small, fast and slow, whereas any one vehicle will surely demonstrate to be “less safe” than the others in some way or another. One could take this argument to absurdity and prove nearly every vehicle on the road to be a hazard as compared to something else.
The “safety” arguments, however, emerge from a totalitarian impulse in which folks feel compelled to control the moral and consumer choices of others. All of the little tyrants – in the anti-SUV crusade - that want to lord it over the decisions of others, look for something, anything to make their argument look like the moral one, or in this case, the “libertarian” one. What is so daunting is that these folks have personal conclusions about the lifestyles and choices of others, and they try to back into pseudo-libertarian arguments so that they can appear philosophically unswerving. However, nothing is more un-libertarian than jumping on the authoritarian hysteria-mobile of anti-SUVism, when in fact the gist of this entire movement is anything but libertarian.
The safety/rollover argument appears to say that one who buys an SUV is inclined to drive like a madman and therefore become a statistic. If we use that line of reasoning, what do we deduce about sports car buyers, or one who buys a hopped-up, hemi, Chrysler muscle car or a 1000cc sport bike?
If consumers value protection from rollovers above all other aspects of vehicle ownership, they will make their buying decisions based on that detail. But in fact, most people do feel it is safer to drive an SUV – rollover statistics aside – because they can sit in a left turn lane and have a better view around the 18-wheeler in front of them. Also, sitting up higher provides a sense of stability for consumers on a roadway system full of vehicles that dwarf the size of their SUV, let alone the standard compact car. In addition, SUV drivers can actually see what is around them when backing out of a parking space or driveway.
The anti-SUV movement as a whole also stresses the “potential harm” factor.
In fact, the short list of potentially harmful vehicles on the road includes commercial trucks, semis, double-trailer monsters, delivery step-vans, all work trucks, car transporting vehicles, trucks with trailers, fifth wheel rigs, campers, RVs, cement rigs, and so on. The long list would include all potential harms outside of driving, and would hence be endless. The term “potential harm”, used often by the anti-SUV types, should be a red flag for any libertarian. The notion that we can eliminate, legislate, or regulate any potentially harmful consumer items that aren’t “as safe” as comparative items in their class is a quick road to tyranny.
So why, indeed, do folks single out SUVs for hysteria treatment when there are oceans of other, bigger, and more dangerous vehicles on the road?
For one thing, egalitarianism is alive and well. The safety argument is a fundamentally egalitarian argument, and alas, it is being used by libertarians to support their own anti-SUV idiosyncrasies.
Going outside of Riggenbach’s analysis, the constant outcries against bigger SUVs bearing down on smaller cars and therefore causing the other guy to get killed - instead of the SUV owner - are entirely egalitarian and ought to be rejected out of hand by any libertarian. Of course there is nothing wrong with putting your survival (and that of your loved ones) before that of the guy who is on the other end of a head-on collision. Since when should we want to drive a smaller car so we can “even up the score” so that our kids, spouse, and grandma have no better advantage of survival than the other guy who drove through a red light while talking on his cell phone?
Why does Riggenbach care what other people “believe” about safety issues and therefore proceed to tell us that we’re all “uninformed?” What anyone “believes” and therefore acts upon is not up for holier-than-thou judgment by Jeff Riggenbach or anyone else. That people can claim they have the upper hand in making decisions on safety issues for others is ludicrous. In fact, the masses are being saturated with the notion that no one is capable of making their own decisions because only the self-appointed elites are smart enough to have the knowledge at hand, while the hoi polloi need the guiding hand of their greater masters.
Riggenbach goes on to tell us that the Audi Quattro is a significantly better vehicle, and proceeds through a series of personal judgments on the Audi’s safety, value, and its propensity to exceed the 4-wheel-drive capacity of SUVs. Why does he find it necessary to provide 4-wheel-drive devotees with an authoritative, non-SUV option in their lives, which, again, is mere subjective opinion on his part?
First, whatever anyone’s argument is for owning 4-wheel-drive SUVs, it is none of anybody else’s business. Since when do the offerings in a free market limit themselves to what is needed? Though Riggenbach does not bash SUVs on the basis of consumer needs, and thankfully so, the whole “need vs. want” line of reasoning, which is the underlying theme of the majority of the anti-SUV’ers, is suspiciously Marxist. In a capitalistic society, we don’t need half of what we got. The excesses and frills are indeed a sign of excess productivity, leisure time, and enjoying the fruits of one’s own labors.
Many SUV haters proceed to say that since they can do without 4-wheel drive in their little corner of the world, then everyone else can, and that’s that. Riggenbach wisely grants that folks need 4-wheel-drive, but again, he plays the Audi card.
The Audi can be objectively proven to be a better quality vehicle than, say, an Explorer. However, certain consumers may value much more than outright quality, and that can include such things as size, style, attitude, colors, or even a straight-up preference for American-built cars or a specific manufacturer such as Ford.
Riggenbach makes the claim that if it weren’t for certain government regulations in the auto industry, “it is unlikely the SUV would have come into existence in the first place.” But wait! The modern SUV concept was indeed a result of putting a truck-like body on a car chassis to get around Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards; however, large utility vehicles were around before there were ever CAFÉ standards or a term such as "SUV." Remember the old Ramchargers, Suburbans, Land Rovers, and International Harvestor trucks? That large, utility vehicles are in demand on the free market has nothing to do with horrific government meddling. Times are a-changing, and consumers adapt to those changes by moving from needs to excesses and wants as the free market becomes more apt to supply the luxuries.
Let’s face it - the arguments against SUVs are a combination of hatred for the hoi polloi and their “commercial” tastes, the impulse to control others, and the appearance of wanting to maximize safety, a wholly utilitarian argument. Defending the collectivist, despotic, foot-stomping anti-SUV’ers cannot reasonably be done on a libertarian basis because basic libertarian philosophy holds that your freedom ends at my nose.
Finally, Riggenbach claims that certain libertarians only defend SUVs because the Greens oppose it, and he calls that “absurd.” Indeed that would be. What is even more absurd is that statement on why SUVs are defended. In fact, it is perplexing to think that he can overlook the totalitarian aspects of claiming to be able to make everyone’s else’s decisions for them, while expecting others to grant his opinion that SUVS – and even Microsoft Windows! – are inferior products, yet a world of ignorant consumers can’t quite comprehend this on their own. Nevertheless, this is the type of decision that is best left to the individual consumer, and it is one that is not necessarily based on out-and-out quality, but is established on a consumer’s notions of subjective needs, wants, utility, and ultimate satisfaction.
In a world awash in dictatorial proclivities and disdain for commercialism, Cato, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and yes, some of the folks at Reason, have been heroic in stepping up to combat the nonsense spewing forth from the SUV haters. People “defend” the SUV because they defend free markets and free choice. They defend SUVs because they are tired of hearing the self-chosen Gods of What is Good or Bad come between others and their lifestyles.
When all's said and done, what does “bashing” mean anyway? Everybody likes to use the terms “SUV bashing” or “anti-SUV”, but what exactly would they like to see happen? Are they hoping the whole world will peacefully boycott SUVs based on their personal anecdotes? Not going to happen. Or are they cheering on the State to take a stand and rid us of that which they don’t like?
At least the left makes no bones about it – they want the government to regulate everything they don’t like out of existence. As for all the assorted conservative and libertarian SUV “bashers”, well, they remain evasive about how a free market can rid us of SUVs, but they make the argument that government planning created them, and therefore, they hint that, ultimately, government taking them away is not problematic.
Anyway, how can the libertarian who defended “decadence” sensibly make a case against SUVs? |
