Libertarianism and the Hurricane

[Nyarlathotep]

I have a question for the die hard Libertarians on this board (i.e Shanek). Suppose Badnarik had somehow gotten elected president, what do you suppose he would have done differently in the wake of this disaster? For that matter, how would a libertarian society in general have dealt with the aftermath of the hurricane.

Please don't take this as an attempt to provoke a 'Bash Libertarians' thread. I am genuinely curious as to the answer.

 

[specious_reasons]

Rather than mock you on SC for posting this , I'll say a few things...

- We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, so the governor would have had all of the Louisiana National Guard to not mobilize until too late.

- I don't know about Badnarak, but I didn't think that Libertarians had any particular problem with the existence of the US military, so using them to enforce martial law would not be against Libertarian principles. Possibly.

- There might be no federal money for relief/reconstruction. Just imagine his popularity upon vetoing that $10 billion! That would be a real test of principles, no?

- He wouldn't be seen reassuring Trent Lott that his house would be rebuilt.

 

[CFLarsen]

The same thought has struck my mind. Great minds think alike, eh?

How can a smallest-possible government counter the devastation of a hurricane like Katrina? Can we rely on charities from companies? It would not seem so. I haven't seen the needed support come from charities. Did people get flown out by choppers from Oxfam? Nope - the Big Bad Gubmint did that.

If anything, Katrina should have taught Americans that, if you want to avoid mayhem, destruction and very possible epidemics, you need a big government.

People are still dying there, and the only thing that can save them is a major effort that only a big government can provide.

Of course, in Libertopia, it's OK to let people die, so - from a Libertarian POV, there's not much of a discussion, is there?

 

[Suddenly]

The same thought has struck my mind. Great minds think alike, eh?

How can a smallest-possible government counter the devastation of a hurricane like Katrina? Can we rely on charities from companies? It would not seem so. I haven't seen the needed support come from charities. Did people get flown out by choppers from Oxfam? Nope - the Big Bad Gubmint did that.

If anything, Katrina should have taught Americans that, if you want to avoid mayhem, destruction and very possible epidemics, you need a big government.

People are still dying there, and the only thing that can save them is a major effort that only a big government can provide.

Of course, in Libertopia, it's OK to let people die, so - from a Libertarian POV, there's not much of a discussion, is there?

Arguably in a libertarian world many of the present problems just wouldn't exist. Just the elimination of government flood insurance alone would radically change the nature of the problem as people just aren't going to take the same risks as bank financing for mortages and businesses dry up. Goodbye densely populated communities below sea-level on hurricane prone shores...


Big government is not the only possible way to exist. Many of the problems it solves are problems it in some way creates. Some problems are created directly by entitlement, some indirectly as a matter of reliance.

As far as government goes in a libertarian society, now that the federal government is both neither hoovering up huge tax dollars nor dictating policy the local governments have a better chance to accrue the assets to do so themselves. Local solutions for local problems.


A totally different question is what would happen in year two of a Badnarik Administration when most of the country is build upon decades of regulatory state based assumptions... I'd imagine it would be a disaster, but that is a far cry from saying that big government is an absolute neccessity...

 

[Manny]

Well, I'm no libertarian and if they have any sense they're hiding right now. But one could make a case that the main thing a Libertopia would have done was not rebuild after the flood of 1915. Or the flood of 1927. Libertopia didn't build levees to Cat 3 standards and stick a bunch of welfare dependents inside the bowl created -- big government did that. Thus the aftermath of the hurricane hitting a theoretical Libertopia Gulf Coast would look a lot more like Mississippi (with the casinos being intact because they weren't on government-mandated barges, of course) than like New Orleans. And it seems that private donations and small government are dealing with that just fine.

 

[Manny]

I blame Bush for the fact that LegalPenguin's post got ahead of mine.

 

[corplinx]

We have a big government Claus. It helped..... close the breach in the levee. My guess is that could have been done by local/state government though.

Citizen flotillas of boats rescuing people probably got more people out than helicoptors during those early days.

I'm not sure this disaster is really an endorsement for a huge federal bureacracy on top of an existing state one. It encourages too much upwards delegation of work.

Charities seem to be doing a great job collecting funds versus having that big federal government increase taxes.

I'm no libertarian but I don't see any support your arguements Claus. Most libertarians I know aren't Ayn Rand types but just believe in limitation of federal government to rigid consitutional boundaries. In other words, they wouldn't oppose local firemen, rescue workers, police, levee engineers.

 

[shanek]

I have a question for the die hard Libertarians on this board (i.e Shanek). Suppose Badnarik had somehow gotten elected president, what do you suppose he would have done differently in the wake of this disaster? For that matter, how would a libertarian society in general have dealt with the aftermath of the hurricane.

A Libertarian would have left it to the private charities, which were already in there and helping almost immediately after it happened. Government took days to get in, and now that they're there, not only are they not helping, they're actively preventing the charities from helping any more!

 

[shanek]

- I don't know about Badnarak, but I didn't think that Libertarians had any particular problem with the existence of the US military, so using them to enforce martial law would not be against Libertarian principles. Possibly.

Martial law is against Libertarian principles. Martial law is also unconstitutional (the Supreme Court even said so). Moreover, look at the chaos and destruction martial law has brought.

 

[shanek]

Arguably in a libertarian world many of the present problems just wouldn't exist. Just the elimination of government flood insurance alone would radically change the nature of the problem as people just aren't going to take the same risks as bank financing for mortages and businesses dry up. Goodbye densely populated communities below sea-level on hurricane prone shores...

True. If you look at the original New Orleans settlements, they're pretty much OK. They were hardly damaged at all. But after the government took over and reconstructed the levees, they started giving people subsidies to move into the flood plain. Stupid!

Oh, and FEMA will only give you money to rebuild in the same place. They don't give you the choice of moving anywhere else.

 

[shanek]

I'm no libertarian but I don't see any support your arguements Claus. Most libertarians I know aren't Ayn Rand types but just believe in limitation of federal government to rigid consitutional boundaries. In other words, they wouldn't oppose local firemen, rescue workers, police, levee engineers.

Well, the question is, what would Badnarik (i.e., a Libertarian president) have done? The President has no authority over the local workers, police, etc.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: Libertarianism and the Hurricane

A Libertarian would have left it to the private charities, which were already in there and helping almost immediately after it happened. Government took days to get in, and now that they're there, not only are they not helping, they're actively preventing the charities from helping any more!

I think I would like to see a bit of evidence that the government is actively preventing private charities from helping any more.

And it is fine to depend on private charities as much as possible, but what about those things that government personnel are better equipped or trained to do? For example, though I could be wrong, I doubt the Red Cross has many helicopters and/or pilots and I don't think that the United Way has a lot of people trained in search and rescue techniques.

 

[claimee]

Thus the aftermath of the hurricane hitting a theoretical Libertopia Gulf Coast would look a lot more like Mississippi (with the casinos being intact because they weren't on government-mandated barges, of course) than like New Orleans. And it seems that private donations and small government are dealing with that just fine.

Mississippi is receiving less than half of what it's asking in federal disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina, the director of the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency said Sunday. Robert Latham is the latest Mississippi official to criticize efforts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Hattiesburg Mayor Johnny DuPree previously said the city went days before getting federal help.
"We're getting much less than 50 percent of what we're requesting," Latham said. "We're trying to ration it so that everybody gets some. We know it's not enough."

FEMA, September 5, 2005

 

[CFLarsen]

We have a big government Claus.

No you don't.

 

[specious_reasons]

Martial law is against Libertarian principles. Martial law is also unconstitutional (the Supreme Court even said so). Moreover, look at the chaos and destruction martial law has brought.

I'll admit my ignorance on that, and won't comment any further.


However, I'm suspicious that martial law caused the chaos and destruction. Possibly we can agree that martial law is not an effective policing strategy?

 

[Luke T.]

No you don't.

Not by Denmark standards, we don't. That's true.

 

[CFLarsen]

A Libertarian would have left it to the private charities, which were already in there and helping almost immediately after it happened. Government took days to get in, and now that they're there, not only are they not helping, they're actively preventing the charities from helping any more!

This is why Libertarians get 0% of the vote, and dropping. I really love Americans. Their flaws may be legion, but they sure as heck don't vote for Libertarians!

Martial law is against Libertarian principles. Martial law is also unconstitutional (the Supreme Court even said so). Moreover, look at the chaos and destruction martial law has brought.

But Badnarik decreeing whatever he wants, if he were to become President, is OK?

Well, the question is, what would Badnarik (i.e., a Libertarian president) have done? The President has no authority over the local workers, police, etc.

But Badnarik can throw people in jail for disagreeing with him? Badnarik can persecute people for merely being employed by the IRS?

 

[Luke T.]

Private charities are going to be the salvation of the people of New Orleans. Our city, which is thousands of miles away, is taking in about 1,000 people. The local churches are gearing up a huge support system for them.

Government will be more involved with the physical rebuilding of the infrastructure of New Orleans.

It has come to light in another topic on SC that the Governor of Louisiana refused the federal takeover of the relief effort when offered as late as this past Saturday. As a Libertarian, Badnarik would have honored that and not done a thing for Louisiana. And I doubt he would have committed a dime to rebuilding.

 

[DavidJames]

Just the elimination of government flood insurance alone would radically change the nature of the problem as people just aren't going to take the same risks as bank financing for mortages and businesses dry up.

I have my doubts about this. I don't think that many people are thinking when they buy a home in a flood plain, "it's okay if our house if flooded, we lose all our possessions and maybe risk our lives, we've got insurance". Besides, take it further. No insurance on homes in the Tornado belt, on hills, above faults, near rivers, forests, etc.

I reserve the right to be wrong of course.

 

[specious_reasons]

I have my doubts about this. I don't think that many people are thinking when they buy a home in a flood plain, "it's okay if our house if flooded, we lose all our possessions and maybe risk our lives, we've got insurance". Besides, take it further. No insurance on homes in the Tornado belt, on hills, above faults, near rivers, forests, etc.

I reserve the right to be wrong of course.

I'm not sure you're wrong, a "Libertopian" government would be radically different from the current US system.

I suspect in the "Libertopian" govt., there would be barriers to people building in risky locations. If the govt. isn't watching out for you, you can be sure that the mortgage companies would force you to be insured up the wazoo for the risks appropriate to your area.

Of course, that has side-effects. More expensive housing means fewer homeowners.... which has its own side effects.... etc. I'm not sure I'm capable of predicting the changes to daily life if America moved significantly towards libertarianism, and I'd be suspicious of people who claim they know.