Political Theory

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

pairunoyd — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:41:09 GMT

Nathyn:
I don't consider compulsory taxation theft or, even if it is, the government's injury to the citizens of New Orleans clearly exceeds any injury caused by compulsory taxation.

What do you mean by, 'the government's injury', in the statement above? Are you saying that whatever standard of living that I don't achieve is an injury caused by the government because the government could have stolen more money for me and made me richer? Maybe I've misunderstood you.

My View of Hurricane Katrina

cees — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:21 GMT

First off, Media misinformation is still prevalent because the superdome was not filled with gang murders and rapes. Actually, there were 6 deaths, 4 natural causes,1 drug overdose and 1 suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_OrleansAt the convention center there was one believed homicide. In my Opinion, MSM, especially Fox were not even close to what was going on. My experience was vastly different from what FOX was reporting… if you could imagine that.I was among a group of local volunteers providing food distribution service within the first few days after the storm. I spoke to hundreds of people, poor, rich, black, white, Europeans, gangsters, the disabled, the elderly and so forth, all stuck in the same situation with no form of communication of what was going on, besides mouth to mouth.I remember this pregnant woman and boyfriend not knowing what to do. It was like people were in shock. I was trying to tell this guy, who had a vehicle, that he could just drive 50 miles west to a nearby hospital and everything would be alright. People were afraid to go anywhere. She was about ready to give birth and I’m not sure where they ended up.However, everybody was civil to us. Everyone would take one plate of food and were grateful. The Red Cross was only giving out Plums and Donuts at the distribution center since the storm… no real food. I heard that Blanco order that because she wanted the people to leave, so she didn’t want food to be given out.

Blanco was over her head but did not want to relinquish control to the Feds and finally did probably a week after. I feel she dropped the ball moreso than Nagin.

Before you start blaming the local government, you have to remember that virtually all lines of communication was down, police and law enforcement scattered and people were doing the best they could with what they had. It’s like the whole area was in a state of SHOCK.I used to live in California, and the first think people would ask me, “Why didn’t people just leave before hand”.

Many people don’t realize the demographic population of Louisiana. We have a very large disproportionate amount of poor, disabled and elderly people living in Louisiana. I saw an 80+ year old woman with mud stains on her blouse from wading through the cesspool of water. She was picked up wondering the highways barefoot 5 days after the storm, because her “..husband had given up”. Brave woman, I’ll say. I guess, it was her own fault for staying behind?

I've been in the middle of the Santa Ana Winds and Fires and they are a different situation from my experience. You have more wealthy people who can just jump in their BMW vehicles and leave. The local government has full use of communciations as well. That's just my opinion, from my experience.

The current laws, however non-constitutional, DOES make Bush responsible, in my opinion. U.S. Citizens have paid many $$$ in taxes for the unconstitutional FEMA, so that Bush could appoint friends in office? I don’t believe he should be pardoned on that stance. So, if Bush is not responsible, I want my Freakin' Tax money PAID BACK with INTEREST......

Do I expect the Federal government to be efficient in anything??? Not really. I do agree with you that the responsibility of local government is always better than federal. Our local shelters did an amazing job. Some of the shelters in New Orleans were substandard but again, they were doing the best they could.I think this was another interesting story I’d like to share with you all… there were a couple of gung-ho guys from our group who wanted to be serious and give some food to some housing projects. They took a truck to the worst of the worst areas of New Orleans where they met up with a bunch of gangsta looking guys. They didn’t know whether to run, lock the door or what, but as they got out of the truck with food, the very big young men started crying and giving them hugs. They were the first sight of people they’ve seen in a week since the storm and felt that they were left here to die.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Torres — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:18:16 GMT

kingmonkey:
Hurricane Katrina was actually made worse by the government. You had people stranded for days on a bridge blocked by the military. You had police and military arresting people for refusing to hand over their lawfully owned firearms. You had a city and a State who kept people locked up in the Super Dome wear gangs murdered, raped and generally ran the place. The evacuation was screwed from the getgo by the inadequate response of the City and the State.
My basic view of that matter is this: First, Bush has nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina. He cannot be blamed for the "failures" of the federal government, FEMA or anything else. Why? Well, take out your handy dandy Constitution and please locate the section that declares the federal government has the authority to interveen in natural disasters. Oh wait....it doesn't. That means when a natural disaster occurs the federal government IS NOT authorized to send troops into the State in which it occured. It is NOT authorized to organized "relief" efforts. It does NOT have the authority to take public funds from the public treasury and give those funds to private individuals and businesses for their benefit even if it is for "humanitarian reasons."
Hurricane Katrina was the SOLE responsiblity of the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisianna. This might be one of the few things we can't blame on Bush. If government had stepped out of the way and allowed charitable organizations and neighborhoods to organize the evacuation of the city everything would have been a lot better. Instead they let people die in the streets by taking all of the city buses away. Every single person in that city could have been bused out if the government had been in the way.

I agree. Here, in California, during the recent wildfires, the private citizen did a better job at taking action and keep things well and safe, while the federal government gave cell phones to people, bought with my mothers taxes! The federal government should stay out of doing anything in cases of natutal disasters. The community is much more reliable in these situations and not FEMA ands its useless spending.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

ozzy43 — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:42:21 GMT

gloodnc:
ozzy43:

They would also have been armed, and crime would have been a non-issue.

ozzy43: I agree with all of your points except this one. If everybody had been armed (but otherwise ill-prepared), I am not sure how we can conclude there that there would have been drastically less crime (for I hope that we can agree armed or otherwise, there will always be at least some non-zero level of theft, rape or murder in such circumstances).

Well, perhaps 'non-issue' is a stretch, because, yes, a non-zero level of opportunistic crime should be expected following any crisis of this sort, but I absolutely think that crime would have been *much less* of an problem than it was. Better?

I mean - if most everyone was armed, the criminals would know it, thus dampening their enthusiasm for illicit actions. I have long maintained that a well armed society would be a more polite, and far less violent, society. Women and older folks, especially, would be safer.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

gloodnc — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:14:29 GMT

<quote>

They would also have been armed, and crime would have been a non-issue.

</quote>

ozzy43: I agree with all of your points except this one. If everybody had been armed (but otherwise ill-prepared), I am not sure how we can conclude there that there would have been drastically less crime (for I hope that we can agree armed or otherwise, there will always be at least some non-zero level of theft, rape or murder in such circumstances).

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

ozzy43 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:47:59 GMT

I'll follow in JonBostwick's footsteps and make a list of the 'proper role of government' (if you believe there is auch a thing) regarding natural catastrophes such as Katrina. Only it's a much shorter list.

1. Never establish State programs and systems which incentivize people to offload their personal responsibility to look out for and provide for themselves and their loved ones onto the State.

In such a case, the people of N'Awlins would have had to purchase flood insurance at market cost, they would have had incentives to ensure the levee system was functional, and in the event of failure of this system, they would have been prepared to help themselves and their communities rather than caterwauling for Big Daddy gummint to come save them. They would also have been armed, and crime would have been a non-issue.

The principle of subsidiarity also plays into this - the most effective level at which to address such issues is the most local level feasible for the scenario in question. The city was overwhelmed, so probably county, with some state assistance.

The point to remember - the point to ALWAYS remember - is that libertarianism, or anarchism, or what have you, does not promise perfection. Natural disasters are just that - disasters. Such events will always cause devastation and misery. The question is: under which system can such devastation and grief be most readily ameliorated. The answer is: NOT a despotic, unaccountable, cumbersome ineffective and inefficient State system.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Grant — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:43:47 GMT

Nathyn:
That is according to you. The Constitution states the role of government is the common defense and general welfare of the nation, protecting each person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the latter which implies some degree of equal opportunity.

The "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does mention "life, liberty and property" (incidentally, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence also used those words) , and supposedly prevents the government from denying those things without due process of law.

Also, the Constitution does not authorize the government acting for the "common defense and general welfare" outside of its strictly enumerated powers. Article 1, section 8 lists the things the government may in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare, but it has no power to do whatever it wishes under the name of defense and welfare.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Grant — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:39:45 GMT

I see the government failure in the Katrina as threefold:

1) The federal government subsidizes flood insurance, removing the price signals which cause fewer people to live in flood-prone areas. In addition, this causes an externality whereby people who choose to live in sensible locations subsidize those who do not.

2) Anti price-gouging laws. These make it illegal for businesses to charge more during a disaster. As a result, disaster relief is unprofitable, and thus it is not provided outside of charity. This is a disastrous law to have on the books.

3) The natural failure of the government's (FEMA's) response. Central planning is incapaple of rebuilding properly, just as it is incapable of building properly in the first place. It all goes back to the economic calculation problem. Demand for relief services must come from those needing the relief directly (and/or their insurers), so the resulting market is driven to serve those caught in the disaster.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Inquisitor — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:50:23 GMT

No, it's a right to action. The objects of appropriation, OTOH, are alienable.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Bostwick — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:45:26 GMT

Mark B.:
it should have been worded, life, liberty, property.

But property is an alienable right.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Inquisitor — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:28:08 GMT

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf

http://www.mises.org/story/2198

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

newson — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:00:35 GMT

nathyn says:

Now -- how this is relevant to Katrina. Katrina flooded because the levees in New Orleans, which are government-owned and funded infrastructure, collapsed. They collapsed due to poor maintanence by the government. Some Libertarians could claim that had the levees been privately owned as private infrastructure, they would've been sufficiently maintained to hold back the flood waters. I do not believe that's a reasonable position, however.

with respect, the original question posed by wgeary was the position of government post-disaster, not the various factors leading up to the disaster (infrastructure, amongst others). i interpreted the question more along the lines of whether there weren't a danger of moral hazard, that is, the reflex aid response from government encouraging risky individual behaviour (building in a flood-zone, with levies that many had warned were inadequate).

thanks for your clear synopsis of the other points, which i appreciated. the points raised by kropotin probably merit a forum all to themselves, maybe others familiar with the literature could play counterpoint.

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Nathyn — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:15:17 GMT

newson:
nathyn states:
"While I concede public works can be wasteful, I strongly disagree that private infrastructure is the solution, on the grounds of the prisoner's dilemma and the free rider. I see the idea of such mass cooperation as being the kind of idealism about humanity that would essentially imply the merit of Anarchist Communism."

perhaps you could elaborate on the prisoner's dilemma and free rider argument as they pertain to the katrina debacle? what private infrastructure are you talking about, anyway? where did anarchist communism slip into the debate? and precisely which "mass cooperation" are you referring to?
there are some catchy phrases here, which appeal to my curiosity, i just think you need to flesh out you arguments a bit more, and then string them together in a way that ordinary mortals can understand.
reading kropotkin sounds worse punishment than the hurricane. i'll plea ignorance on "Mutual Aid". is that a bob geldof concert?

In capitalism, people only tend to act when they have some incentive. The Soviet Union proved that appeals to abstract incentives like "supporting the revolution" or "support for one's comrades" cannot be taken seriously in any discussion of real, economic behavior.

Individuals, for the most part, only produce when they have some kind of profit-motive. This isn't completely true, but it's true enough that economic models based upon rational choice theory tend to be relatively accurate. Some people feel some sense of altruism and will engage in charity, even at a loss. Although the actual amount of charity in the free market is exaggerated by the amount of poorly managed charities that are essentially businesses. As an example of what I mean, my father used to work for a corrupt charity (which I won't name) devoted to autism research. The charity received a substantial amount of donations annually, but very little of the money went to autism research because those that ran the charity made six-figure salaries and employees received large salaries and bonuses. The board of directors (similar to that of a corporation) elected by donators (as opposed to shareholders) exercised little oversight and there wasn't any strong demand by donators for strong oversight, probably because it hadn't occurred to them that the charity was corrupt. People tend to give to charity, not because they necessarily expect any tangible result, but to feel good about themselves.

Now, onto the prison's dilemma -- the prisoner's dilemma is a theoretical situation in game theory where two individuals with imperfect information may act in such a way that both are made worse off by not cooperating. The classic example is to take two prisoners accused of the committing the same crime together and offer each of them the opportunity to snitch on the other in exchange for a reduced sentence. Because both prisoners will tend to suspect that the other will snitch first, both prisoners end up snitching and neither gets a reduced sentence. Only if both of them cooperate, trusting eachother and what the other will do, will both of them NOT snitch, leading to both of them being set free.

This is the mathematical basis for the free-rider in economics. The free-rider in economics goes something like this:

Say you have two business men in the same industry who would benefit from infrastructure. Neither will invest in inffrastructure, because he suspects that if he just waits long enough, eventually someone else will build the infrastructure for him. Being that every individual thinks this way (because it's the mathematically the most logical course of action), the infrastructure is never built at all.

The market anarchist solution is the idea that people will simply come together and build the infrastructure if it needs to be built -- that is, they'll collude, as often happens in markets, with trade associations, consumer watchdogs, workers' unions, political parties, charities, etc..

This doesn't seem to be any different than the claims made about infrastructure by anarchist communists. In Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, he describes examples of such radical cooperation in nature, and how it exists in human beings, too, because of how it contributes to our survival. And so, in practice, the description of market anarchism sounds relatively similar to that of anarchist communism -- radical cooperation, individual sovereignty, lack of persisting violence, and the abolishment of involuntary poverty and labor. The only difference is that market anarchists claim trade will still go on in anarchism. But this seems dubious: If people are capable of engaging in radical cooperation to establish infrastructure, why wouldn't they simply satisfy the demand for individual wants and needs through the same cooperative process? That is, if they can build bridges, road systems, and railways through joint cooperation, why would they suddenly resort to competition when it comes to providing basic food and shelter?

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

newson — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:13:30 GMT

nathyn states:

"While I concede public works can be wasteful, I strongly disagree that private infrastructure is the solution, on the grounds of the prisoner's dilemma and the free rider. I see the idea of such mass cooperation as being the kind of idealism about humanity that would essentially imply the merit of Anarchist Communism."

perhaps you could elaborate on the prisoner's dilemma and free rider argument as they pertain to the katrina debacle? what private infrastructure are you talking about, anyway? where did anarchist communism slip into the debate? and precisely which "mass cooperation" are you referring to?

there are some catchy phrases here, which appeal to my curiosity, i just think you need to flesh out you arguments a bit more, and then string them together in a way that ordinary mortals can understand.

reading kropotkin sounds worse punishment than the hurricane. i'll plea ignorance on "Mutual Aid". is that a bob geldof concert?

Re: The Libertarian View of Hurricane Katrina

Nathyn — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:01:22 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
Nathyn:
The media and the black supremacist demagogues made things even worse by promoting the vicious lie that most of the Katrina victims were black.
However, to some degree, I think that the citizens of New Orleans were themselves to blame, both for depending on government and also the "moral poverty" of the African-American community, incapable of getting on a bus unless the government sends you one personally and knocks on your door, as your own personal taxi service.
Yeah, you seem to be doing a fine job of setting the record straight...
So if you have no car and the public buses stop running because the drivers are just as interested in leaving town as the rest of the population how exactly does one get out of town? That's a rhetorical question really, I just wanted to point out the blatant racist remarks you posted.
Obviously a troll but, as I've said before in another thread, I really can't resist feeding the trolls...
What's even worse, as much as I love troll baiting and all that the rest of your post isn't even worth the time and effort -- which really is saying a lot because I take great pleasure in deconstructing the fallacies Statists such as yourself throw around as fact.

If you live in hurricane alley, knowing that public transportation and possibly even private transportation is not dependable, it is your own fault for not securing your own transportation in advance.

And if you are not aware that public and private transportation are not dependendable in a major hurricane, your ignorance is not the government's fault.

No one forced anyone to be hopelessly dependent on government. They chose to and, when government failed, they had no means to evacuate.

Besides even a majority of America's poor have cars. You mean to tell me that most people in New Orleans -- all of them -- they didn't have cars?

A huge amount of people in New Orleans were simply idiots who decided to stick it out, as many fools do during hurricane season.