In recent months, libertarians have felt the need to constantly defend SUVs. There is an article about it on lewrockwell.com today. This has come after a series of ads aired throughout the country alleging a link between SUVs and terrorist financing. Personally, I think the ads are bunk. It may be true that some of the profits from Middle East oil go to terrorists, but that doesn't make me responsible for terrorist activities just because I buy gasoline. I do, however, think that using as little fuel as possible is a good thing. That's one reason I dislike SUVs. Another is their safety record. Not for the people driving the SUV, but for the people they hit. This is one issue that the SUV defenders just haven't touched. Take a look at this quote I got off a comments board at Reason Online:

My wife and kids are alive because they were driving a Suburban. They were stopped in a traffic jam when they were rear-ended by a semi truck going at full tilt. It knocked them 200 feet off the road and totally destroyed the rear half of the vehicle, but my family walked away with minor injuries.

So...... I'll drive the biggest land yacht I can afford for the rest of my life, and any skinny bearded wierdo who doesn't like it can KISS MY ASS, right in the groove.

-ccm

It's this kind of attitude that makes me dislike SUV drivers. In this situation the guy came out okay because he was the one who got hit. But what if you're the one doing the hitting? I see college students barreling down the road in their Excursions and Tahoes all the time. I once got hit from the side by a young driver. Luckily, she was driving a small car. If she had been driving an SUV, I would have been seriously hurt. Driving an SUV for safety reasons is inconsiderate to everybody else. It's your safety at the expense of theirs.

I think these libertarians defend SUVs as a knee-jerk reaction to those who like to control others. Many SUV-haters want to use the government to regulate the automobile industry as they see fit. Of course I am against this, but that doesn't mean I have to defend SUVs. Using social pressure to minimize SUV use and educating the public about SUV dangers are good if they are done by private citizens. If you get trapped into defending every bad habit, you will fall right into the hands of those who claim libertarians don't care about the common good.

On my way to work today, I was listening to a local AM radio show. They were interviewing some University of Virginia doctor about old age or something. A caller asked the doctor what the profit margin of hospitals were, because if it was high, then something had to be done. The doctor remarked that he gets dismayed when he hears hospitals referred to as businesses, because the priority should be “high quality health care”.

This exchange is a perfect example of the economic ignorance of so many people, even educated people. Somewhere along the way, these two learned that profits and business are associated with exploitation and a lack of compassion. This, folks, is complete nonsense. Healthcare is a business – they sell a product, namely relief from sickness. If they make no profits, how are they supposed to improve? Research isn’t free. Well, I suppose government could pay for the research. But where does government get its money? From businesses and individuals. And where do they get their money? Profit.

You see, profits are the source of all wealth. All wealth. If you sell something and make a profit, you have created wealth where none existed. You can use your profits to do more work and create even greater things. If you never make profits, you won’t get anywhere. Imagine a guy who sells hotdogs on the street. If every day he spends as much making the hotdogs as he gets selling them, he’ll never move beyond selling hotdogs. But if he makes a profit, he can buy a bigger hotdog stand and sell more hotdogs. Maybe eventually he can buy a restaurant. (Actually, this is how Marriot of Marriot hotels got his start). The same principle applies to health care. They are selling a product. If they make no profits, how can their product ever improve?

It’s no coincidence that the quality and accessibility of health care has gone down with every new regulation. Regulations hinder profits. Every year they add new regulations and every year the quality of health care gets worse. Then they blame it on greed, insurance companies, whatever, and ask for more regulation. Then the problem gets worse and the cycle continues. It won’t end until we have the “single payer system” (i.e. everybody gets health care from the government). God help us then.

Finally, Frontpage comes up with a good article. This story is about a Yale grad who did the “Teach for America” program and learned the hard way that some kids can’t be taught. Not with the parents they have at home, anyway. I totally understand what this guy is talking about. Although I’ve never dealt with kids as young as the ones he had, I’ve definitely had my share of unruly students. They mess things up for the entire class. I also agree with the author’s conclusion: these students should be put in a separate school. No sense bringing every student down to the level of a few troublemakers.

Of course, this guy’s biggest mistake was working for the DC government. He should have known better, seeing as how he’s from the area. If you want to really see how most inner city schools work, check out this article.

Here is an excellent article about the Israel/Palestine situation by an author I really like. Here, he counters some of the more common arguments in favor of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and other disputed territories. The one I hate the most is that Palestinian nationalism is a new occurrence that mainly arose in opposition to Israel, that there is no ‘real’ Palestine, and that Palestinians have no unique culture and should be called Arabs instead. The first statement is true, the second one is irrelevant, and the last one is false. But even though it’s true that Palestinian nationalism is new, so what? Israeli nationalism isn’t that old, either. For that matter, no Arab country has any kind of old nationalist movement. That’s because the whole concept of the nation/state is relatively new to the Arab world (roughly WWI). Even today, most Arabs will more readily identify themselves with their clan or city of origin than with their nation.

But what difference does it make that Palestine was never really a nation in the first place? That doesn’t change the fact that Israel’s policy with the Palestinians is shameful and in serious need of repair. Despite propaganda you may have heard to the contrary, Palestinians are not inherently war-like people. If they are left alone, they will go back to tending their shops and businesses (except maybe for the more radical elements that want Israel destroyed entirely. They, however, will lose all their power once the majority of Palestinians get what they want – to be left the hell alone). For more good coverage of the Palestine/Israel problem, go to antiwar.com or this guy's blog.