Will the Army Corps or the Sewerage and Water Board will suffer any financial reverses as a result of the failure of their installations to prevent the horrendous conditions now being suffered by New Orleanians? To ask this question is to answer it. Because of goverment’s inability to live up to its promise, as well as its lack of accountability, no tax money should be poured into New Orleans. These are stolen funds, and should be returned to their rightful owners, the taxpayers of the nation. Of course, this applies, in spades, to those victimized by Katrina. But the refunds should be in the form of money, not expenditures for rebuilding, which their proper owners may or may not favor. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4050/then-katrina-came/
Then Katrina Came
Previous post: Introducting the Mises Screensaver
Next post: DirectNIC and Michael Barnett Stories
{ 39 comments }
Very helpful ideas: the best one is the advice to help Katrina’s victims by giving money to the Mises Institute! People should also visit local bookstores immediately, buy up all the Ayn Rand novels, and ship them to the refugee camps. Why should anyone give money or blood to the bad ol’ Red Cross? It’ll just be wasted on poor people.
You saved the most important part of the article for last. That is the most important folks in the decision of how much it costs preparing for storms and the question of rebuilding is PRIVATE INSURANCE.
Had insurance markets worked correctly this disaster would have been much less extensive. Instead of having Bush and congress make decisions like should we repair and strenghten this levee or build this bridge to an airport, the insurance industry would take care of that. The insurance business would make rates high for areas without strong storm protection and rates low for areas with the opposite. Then the tens of thousands of actors (not dozens to hundreds) managing the various risks and preferences of consumers would determine the correct price to live in New Orleans or anywhere else.
Instead we have a state that says things like “We will protect you.” at the same time it reduces funding for levee construction and protects folks in Iraq.
To Dr. Block
Walter, I wrote the below in answer to an email from a friend who asked “Should N.O. be rebuilt.”
I agree that it is the people of New Orleans who should be financially responsible for their decision to live in New Orleans and not look to those of us who live in the rest of the country to financially support that decision. But I would let them build a local government (to avoid the free rider problem) to enable them to move quickly to do that. As per below letter. Sincerely, Bill Grant
Answer to question from a friend: “Why Rebuild New Orleans?”
“It’s an economic center with a good port. Whose citizens have built a unique culture that has made it a very desirable place to live for those who have helped build and sustain this culture. So natural that people want to live there. People apparently realized and accepted since 1817 (I believe the year first dyke built.) that it would require some dyking to be able to do so.
The magnitude of the calamity was perhaps due to a change in the people’s attitudes over the years. One survivor said on TV that when the storm had passed, her reaction was “Is that all there is?” Apparently the buildings in the city survived very well, presumably because of the strength of the buildings and because New Orleans was outside the storm’s epicenter which was to the east of it. It was only when the levees broke that the big damage was experienced.
One piece that I saw said that in an article in one of America’s national magazines a few years back, an engineer called what happened as going to happen. That not much would have been changed in the article if written after the levees broke. And apparently he was not alone in predicting this disaster.
But no one there locally provided sufficient leadership to mobilize a locally originated program to strengthen the levees. Instead, that responsibility was passed to state and national governments. To those not directly at risk.
Too many of the area’s natural leadership abandoned their city (as of course they did in most other urban areas in America), moving to the city’s suburbs. They did not take responsibility for their home area which included N..O.
This same abdication of responsibility was also exhibited by the man in the street as exhibited by those who lined up to go into the Super Dome with a shirt and pants and pretty much nothing else. If people had said, “Heh, Disaster is looming. I better assume responsibility for myself and my family and walk across the bridge if I have to. I better take with me an emergency supply of water and food, etc.”, you would not have had the same loss of life or suffering. Instead they were of a mind that said “The government will take care of me.” and arrived at the super dome as for a picnic. Would you have had this lemming like, total abdication of personal responsibility 50 years ago? I don’t think so. Our liberal friends thought that they were being compassionate when they moved responsibility from the individual to the state. The people of New Orleans now should know different.
You need some retired business man, doctor, lawyer, etc. to step forward and say “We in the greater New Orleans area were irresponsible. We must assume responsibility for ourselves. The first thing we must do is establish a government like the city of Jacksonville, FL did that takes in the entire Greater New Orleans Area and that entity then must assume responsibility for seeing that a disaster like this never happens again. We should not abdicate that responsibility to those who do not share our direct threat. We were irresponsible in not having done this already and we are paying the price. Let’s put aside parochial interests, establish a government that takes in all of us who share the same threat, and then have that new entity do what is necessary to insure that such a disaster doesn’t happen to us ever again.”
To Dr. Block
Walter, I wrote the below in answer to an email from a friend who asked “Should N.O. be rebuilt.”
I agree that it is the people of New Orleans who should be financially responsible for their decision to live in New Orleans and not look to those of us who live in the rest of the country to financially support that decision. But I would let them build a local government (to avoid the free rider problem) to enable them to move quickly to do that. As per below letter. Sincerely, Bill Grant
Answer to question from a friend: “Why Rebuild New Orleans?”
“It’s an economic center with a good port. Whose citizens have built a unique culture that has made it a very desirable place to live for those who have helped build and sustain this culture. So natural that people want to live there. People apparently realized and accepted since 1817 (I believe the year first dyke built.) that it would require some dyking to be able to do so.
The magnitude of the calamity was perhaps due to a change in the people’s attitudes over the years. One survivor said on TV that when the storm had passed, her reaction was “Is that all there is?” Apparently the buildings in the city survived very well, presumably because of the strength of the buildings and because New Orleans was outside the storm’s epicenter which was to the east of it. It was only when the levees broke that the big damage was experienced.
One piece that I saw said that in an article in one of America’s national magazines a few years back, an engineer called what happened as going to happen. That not much would have been changed in the article if written after the levees broke. And apparently he was not alone in predicting this disaster.
But no one there locally provided sufficient leadership to mobilize a locally originated program to strengthen the levees. Instead, that responsibility was passed to state and national governments. To those not directly at risk.
Too many of the area’s natural leadership abandoned their city (as of course they did in most other urban areas in America), moving to the city’s suburbs. They did not take responsibility for their home area which included N..O.
This same abdication of responsibility was also exhibited by the man in the street as exhibited by those who lined up to go into the Super Dome with a shirt and pants and pretty much nothing else. If people had said, “Heh, Disaster is looming. I better assume responsibility for myself and my family and walk across the bridge if I have to. I better take with me an emergency supply of water and food, etc.”, you would not have had the same loss of life or suffering. Instead they were of a mind that said “The government will take care of me.” and arrived at the super dome as for a picnic. Would you have had this lemming like, total abdication of personal responsibility 50 years ago? I don’t think so. Our liberal friends thought that they were being compassionate when they moved responsibility from the individual to the state. The people of New Orleans now should know different.
You need some retired business man, doctor, lawyer, etc. to step forward and say “We in the greater New Orleans area were irresponsible. We must assume responsibility for ourselves. The first thing we must do is establish a government like the city of Jacksonville, FL did that takes in the entire Greater New Orleans Area and that entity then must assume responsibility for seeing that a disaster like this never happens again. We should not abdicate that responsibility to those who do not share our direct threat. We were irresponsible in not having done this already and we are paying the price. Let’s put aside parochial interests, establish a government that takes in all of us who share the same threat, and then have that new entity do what is necessary to insure that such a disaster doesn’t happen to us ever again.”
Should New Orleans be rebuilt? Can it be done so feasibly on private capital? If the port of New Orleans was an important gateway for international shipping, can some of those shipping operations now be feasibly transferred to other Gulf locations, like Mobile or the Galveston – Houston region? Container shipping is projected to increase in the future and extra port space will be needed. It should be technologically possible to modifiy Mississippi River barges so that they could at least be towed across Mississippi Sound to Mobile.
Oil tankers unloading oil in the Gulf transfer the oil into pipelines. New oil pipelines can be built to other ports by private enterprise. New oil refineries can be built on private capital at locations other than at hurricane-prone New Orleans.
Except that political reputations depend on the fUS Gov’t at least being seen in the public eye as rebuilding America’s city-below-the-sea. Such an exercise alone could devolve into another orgy of mis-spent and squandered tax dollars. Yes Prof Block, Ludwig von Mises was right . . . and so were you. The job of whether to rebuild the city-below-the-sea or relocate elsewhere absolutely needs to be undertaken by private industry operating in an environment free from state subsidy as well as free from state coercion.
Except gov’t won’t ;et it happen that way.
Harry Valentine
Bruce,
Sarcasm aside, I think Prof. Block’s point against the Red Cross is that they are highly comingled with the State, and any contributions to them involves condoning that. When donating to a charity* — even if only for a specific activity they do — you are in actuality financially endorsing everything they do, because that’s just more money left over for their other activities. Furthermore, Prof. Block pointed out other organizations (Salvation Army) which might be more appropriate for those of libertarian orientation.
Arguably, donating blood to the Red Cross is quite different, since that can only be used for one thing, and doesn’t allow more money to be spent on their other activities. However, Block was talking specifically about financial donations. Because of its nature, blood is a different in kind, as a donation, than financial assets. I’d note, however, that donating money to the Red Cross would be a better allocation of resources than donating it to the government.
As for Prof. Block’s suggestion to donate to the LvMI, so what? The LvMI is an intellectual force for freedom around the world, and is actually involved in helping out people in NO right now, and communicating to the world the real story of New Orleans (see posts on Barnett & DirecNIC).
Prof. Block’s suggestions on how to deal with these types of problems may not be immediately taken up. However, they are the best possible solution to the problem, and will eventually have to be taken up more and more, as populations become denser, and the costs of States and “public property” become more and more impossible to ignore if individuals want to live, and live quality-lives.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
PS: I’ve noticed that on several of your posts, you engage in unprovoked nasty sarcastic remarks. This is completely unnecessary; you can make a point without being personally insulting.
David,
It is clear that Bruce is interested neither in intelligent and civil comment nor in the inquiry and introspection required for the task at hand. His understanding of libertarianism is superficial at best, and the chip on his shoulder isn’t worth spending the time trying to knock off.
I suggest we just ignore him.
Bruce should also understand that libertarianist only wish for associations, charity to take more place, but it is only possible with the withdrawal of the state from these sectors.
There is no morality in compulsory donations to charity through taxes..
We heard a lot about Toqueville recently, that man described how charities and non-lucrative organizations are a crucial part of the civil society of a free nation…
I wrote libertarianists. haha.
Should have been libertariationnisters.
Yes but I think Walter Block could’ve made his case without bashing the Red Cross and urging donations for the Mises Inst.
The real problem wasn’t the levees. Indeed if private $ was running the show, it would be too expensive for anyone to live there, this city in a bowl right on the gulf, let alone $$$ to build super duper cat 5 resistant levees. Instead, govt artificially made it too cheap which made it possible for many poor people to live in this death trap. Actually it wasn’t specifically federal flood insurance that was the problem for NO but rather the typical massive welfare state that encourages dependency for everything
areilb,
Reminds me of the statement made by a government bureaucrat awhile back about the private sector not being able to afford putting a man on the moon. The truth, of course, is that while the private sector did in fact pay for it — through confiscatory taxation — it would never have chosen to do so of its own accord, as the risks far outweighed the rewards.
the scary thing is that there are plenty of people who would risk the lives of thousands of people just so that they can rebuild the city of Mardi Gras.
Reuters: “If you have a building half full of water, everything above the water is growing mold. When it dries out, the rest grows mold,” Zeliger said. “Most of the buildings will have to be destroyed.”
New Orleans is dead and pumping out the toxic flood water is going to poison the lake and much of the Delta, so the question is what to rebuild/reclaim if anything at all. An industrial center needs workers housed nearby, so high ground might be worthwile, but much of the former city is uneconomic. Refugees won’t be coming back.
How is funding Mises going to influence the disposition of 250,000 homeless unemployed?
“How is funding Mises going to influence the disposition of 250,000 homeless unemployed?”
Funding the Mises Institute will promote free enterprise. If Bill Gates or George Soros were to give the MI just $1 billion, a mere pittance for people of this sort, the market system will be given a gigantic boost. Not only in the future, when hundreds more Austro libertarians will become professors, journalists, etc. but even in the immediate future. Just think in terms of a new Washington Post with Lew Rockwell as publisher and Jeff Tucker as editor. Or, think of a new Fox News with these two in similar positions. That’s point one.
Point two is that to the degree a country embraces libertarianism and economic freedom, it becomes richer, far richer. (For those of you who are empirically oriented, see this publication for an illustration of that claim: Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995 Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute).
Point three is that with a radically richer society, it would be just that much easier for the U.S. to come to the rescue of “250,000 homeless unemployed.” And not through welfare checks either, but rather via the creation of new employment to produce still more wealth.
Nor does the Mises Institute stand merely for free enterprise. The MI also urges and end to U.S. imperialism abroad (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan, at present). Bringing back the troops asap would create still additional wealth, with which to help, further, the “250,000 homeless unemployed.”
Moreover, the Mises Institute opposes regulations, such as the minimum wage law and coercive union legislation that is responsible for unemployment. It is an economic fallacy that additional wealth is needed to give jobs to these “250,000 homeless unemployed.” Even if we were half as rich as we now are, everyone could be employed in the absence of government laws which preclude such a situation.
Please realize several things in this regard. First, I am not employed by The Mises Institute and thus cannot speak in their behalf. The views expressed above are only my own opinion. Second, the MI was not the only organization I advised that people contribute to, in my column on Katrina. I also mentioned the Libertarian Parties of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. They, too, play an important role in raising public appreciation for the free enterprise system in those states.
I’m afraid that you vastly underestimate the power of government. It’s not going to go away in the face of a stronger institute or libertarian political parties. In fact, the worse thing that could happen is if the LP gets more than a couple of seats in congress because it will be corrupted real fast as the culture of Washington: lobbyists, special interests groups, politicians, etc all water down libertarians once they are used to power. Look what happened to all those 1994 Gingrich Republicans who talked about eliminating entire cabinet positions. LP will be just like every other party except they will let people smoke pot. (and you *know* that they will be joined by liberals who will try to subsidize and regulate it with needle programs and methadone clinics)
walter block:
Please realize several things in this regard. First, I am not employed by The Mises Institute and thus cannot speak in their behalf.
Then you must be a different Walter Block from the one at the top of the Mises Institute Senior Faculty list.
If Bill Gates or George Soros were to give the MI just $1 billion, a mere pittance for people of this sort, the market system will be given a gigantic boost.
Don’t worry: after your comments on the Red Cross in the original article and on LR’s site, it’s most unlikely that either of these guys will donate even a cent to the Mises Institute.
arlelb,
Not that I don’t have great respect for Dr. Block, but I fully agree with you. And nothing against its individual members, but as a “small l” libertarian, I have no more use for the Libertarian Party than I do for any other political party. They all have one thing in common, after all, which is not just to rule but to rule as organs of the state. The LP may want to keep this cancer on society small, but it does not want to get rid of it, as this would obviate its reason for being. (As much as I admire Ron Paul, one might as well send a virgin to reform a whorehouse, as Nock famously suggested; and what self-respecting libertarian would serve on a school board, for heaven’s sake: http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml).
In short, the LP wants political power no less than the other parties do, and were it true to the libertarian ideal, it would abandon party politics and reorganize itself into a bona fide secession movement, as voting out the national government is the only vote worth casting now.
And a billion dollars would sure be a nice way to kick the things off. Count me in for a thousand.
Bruno,
That Walter Block is listed as Senior Faculty on the Mises.org’s website does not mean he is employed at the LvMI. Staff-members are employed at the LvMI. Prof. Block gets his paycheck from Loyola University, NO. It is difficult to believe that you did not know this, especially since the university of employment is listed next to the professor’s names.
Regarding the Red Cross, Prof. Block makes good points against them. They’re very comingled with the State, and have agendas that libertarians cannot in good conscience give money too. They ignored the risks of spreading HIV. And there was also that funds scandal from the last disaster, where money donated to them wasn’t (until public protest) all going towards the relief effort. They’ve demonstrated themselves to be completely unworthy of financial donations (blood may be another matter, unless there’s competing charities in that regard).
The Salvation Army is a substitute. Given that Prof. Block mentioned the Salvation Army as a substitute — and since they also help the poor — it is clear that you are just trying to be obnoxious and are nit-picking. In fact, it seems more like you are simply being intellectually dishonest.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
It still amazes me how much venom can be inspired by articles on this site. I see a great deal of piss and vinegar from those who oppose the views of the article and again from the rebuttals. It is very sad. This site is designed to exchange ideas and, NO, we don’t have to agree on the fine points. It is also designed to teach the principles of Austrian economics and promote a truly free society.
No sensible human will dispute that the natural disaster of Katrina is horrible and that those people who incurred damages from it need help. Needing something doesn’t mean you should get it or that you will; however, a decent civilization will take care of people hurt by such things.
I did not see this article as coming out against helping those hurt by the storm. Most of the help, that will actually help, is coming directly from private sources. And for all of those who are complaining about those of us who seem cold in light of these circumstances — you are turning a blind eye to the long-term damage that these people will be subject to becuase of misguided charities and individuals and the coercive actions of government. The pain those unfortunate people are feeling now is nothing compared to what is about to be done to them. This is one of the very few places that anyone will hear about the long-term horror that is about to be enacted.
We all feel bad for everyone on the Gulf Coast and I feel bad for those who didn’t know better. I am more concerned with why they didn’t know and desire to teach them better than I am with throwing money at them right now. Mises gets my charitable donations precisely for this reason. We have to look more than five minutes in front of our faces.
We are on the brink of a hard and fast fall that will cause damage that makes Katrina look like a light summer storm; or, we are on the verge of a break-through, one that will propel humanity to our highest potential. Which way do you want to go? Your tone on this site and your life in general can tell the rest of us a great deal about you. I enjoy a good sarcastic comment; but, only one that has no venom towards the recipient. People need to hear this message. This institute and those who contribute to it are the heroes of civilization. If this wisdom is not shared (in a manner that others will be willing to receive, especially the unitiated) then all is lost.
Thank you for this article — it needed to be stated.
It’s unfortunate that the basic ideas of the article that imply federal government ownership and decision making in regard to the levees are wrong. Further, the idea that all storm damage or all flooding can be controlled is foolish. The public, local governments, and several federal agencies all participated or had the opportunity to participate in the levee decisions. Less creative writing and more research, please.
It’s fascinating to read some of the history of FEMA. Despite widespread criticism of FEMA simply for being hosted within the Dept. of Homeland Security, this org chart location was really a return home for the agency.
FEMA began life in the Cold War where it recommended citizens counter nuclear attack with “duck and cover”. In New Orleans, it’s first reaction seemed to recommend citizens turn into ducks!,/p>
After the 1990 Loma Prieta California earthquake, Congressman Mineta concluded FEMA “could screw up a two-car parade.” Following Hurrican Andrew FEMA took about 3 days to get into action. George H W Bush is said to have suffered electoral consequences for the poor showing of FEMA in Florida. Under Clinton, and following a scathing post-Andrew GAO review that , the agency seemed to have got it’s act together, especially under the chairmanship of Clinton appointee James Lee Witt.
That the application of a GAO blow torch to the agency would create pressure for improvement should not surprise Austrians.
“In the fall of 1992, Senator Barbara Mikulski, then the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA’s budget, told the General Accounting Office (GAO) that it had to suggest real improvements for FEMA or else the GAO itself would see its budget slashed. Officials took the threat from Mikulski, whose subcommittee had jurisdiction over the GAO’s budget as well, very seriously. “This isn’t a member of Congress we were eager to upset,” says GAO administrator Stan Czerwinski. “She wanted this fixed and she’s a very key player in Congress for us, and we were there to help her.”
This quote is from an article at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.franklin.html that describes FEMA during it’s “Phoenix revival” under Clinton, …but the agency’s apparent subsequent collapse back to a more normal level of incompetence really tells us much more about how the political/bureaucratic boom-bust cycle really works, and why the absence of competitive pressure is the mother of sloth.
David J. Heinrich:
My ironic response to Dr Block was due to the fact that he claims he cannot speak for the LvMI since he is not “employed” by them. If the faculty ans senior faculty cannot speak for the LvMI, who can? Can the administrative assistants listed in the Staff page speak for the Institute?
I agree that there isn’t much point in donating to the Red Cross. But by ranting against homosexuals (as he did on Lew Rockwell’s website when criticising the RC) he is making sure that few donors and people in the media, if any, will touch the LvMI with a bargepole. As soon as a Google search turns up Hoppe’s and Block’s comments on homosexuals, out the window goes the LvMI. This has got nothing to do with fighting against the government: it’s a market requirement due to the fact most people who read these newspapers don’t like prejudices against homosexuals. And as more generations grow up watching Will & Grace and The Simpsons, even more won’t.
Bush can bring war to everybody worldwide, but he is incapable to help his own people – ??? Some strange (?) ‘organisation’ is standing behind this man….
Love, happiness and peace, Siegfried
Funding the Mises Institute will promote free enterprise…create wealth…”
This makes no sense, sir. Funding MI merely promotes MI and its constituent players. A bit absurd to claim a monopoly on freedom and wealth creation. But have it your own way. What’s the R.O.I. we should expect on that billion and how many years before payback?
Walter Block wrote: “In contrast, I do not recommend the American Red Cross. I still have not forgiven them for turning aside risks of spreading AIDS and infecting hundreds of people, many of them hemophiliacs.”
he gives a link about the case…but it was the Canadian Red Cross that was involved over 20 years ago.
I have one thing to say. Dr. Block was never in the middle of Katrina as I was. He left and was safely in Vancouver. The Red Cross and FEMA are not perfect and certainly FEMA was a royal screw up, but I certainly enjoyed the food and water at the hospital. I also enjoyed the military personnel who guarded my life while I was working in the days following the hurricaine. Being the only “functioning” hospital other than Ochner we were very very busy taking care of sad and frightened sick people. I too was afraid. Perhaps if Dr. Block is ever “in the middle of a disaster” he would refuse the Red Cross’s offer of food, water and medical assistance in the interest of holding true to his principles. Perhaps he could send a text msg to some buddies at the mises institute and maybe they would text message a bottle of water to him. Red Cross is not perfect but in this tragedy they are doing something unlike some people who are sitting up north criticizing the way its being done while they are doing nothing but talking. Roll up your sleeves or shut up.
I have one thing to say. Dr. Block was never in the middle of Katrina as I was. He left and was safely in Vancouver. The Red Cross and FEMA are not perfect and certainly FEMA was a royal screw up, but I certainly enjoyed the food and water at the hospital. I also enjoyed the military personnel who guarded my life while I was working in the days following the hurricaine. Being the only “functioning” hospital other than Ochner we were very very busy taking care of sad and frightened sick people. I too was afraid. Perhaps if Dr. Block is ever “in the middle of a disaster” he would refuse the Red Cross’s offer of food, water and medical assistance in the interest of holding true to his principles. Perhaps he could send a text msg to some buddies at the mises institute and maybe they would text message a bottle of water to him. Red Cross is not perfect but in this tragedy they are doing something unlike some people who are sitting up north criticizing the way its being done while they are doing nothing but talking. Roll up your sleeves or shut up.
I have one thing to say. Dr. Block was never in the middle of Katrina as I was. He left and was safely in Vancouver. The Red Cross and FEMA are not perfect and certainly FEMA was a royal screw up, but I certainly enjoyed the food and water at the hospital. I also enjoyed the military personnel who guarded my life while I was working in the days following the hurricaine. Being the only “functioning” hospital other than Ochner we were very very busy taking care of sad and frightened sick people. I too was afraid. Perhaps if Dr. Block is ever “in the middle of a disaster” he would refuse the Red Cross’s offer of food, water and medical assistance in the interest of holding true to his principles. Perhaps he could send a text msg to some buddies at the mises institute and maybe they would text message a bottle of water to him. Red Cross is not perfect but in this tragedy they are doing something unlike some people who are sitting up north criticizing the way its being done while they are doing nothing but talking. Roll up your sleeves or shut up.
The ranting against homosexuals and the promotion of heterosexuality found in the writings of Block and Hoppe are an affront to people who otherwise support the Mises Institute and its efforts. For example, look at the dark-ages approach that Hoppe takes toward homosexuals in his book Democracy: The God That Failed. As Bruce mentioned above, these rantings have nothing to do with fighting against the government.
Sincerely, Luke Fitzhugh
I think I speak for Hans Hoppe as well as myself when I say that neither of us has ever ourselves violated any rights of homosexuals that libertarians recognize, nor advocated that anyone else do so.
Dr. Block,
Your response to my comment does not respond to the point. I did not say that you or Hoppe had ever violated any rights of homosexuals. My point phrased as a question is: What does ranting against homosexuals, as for example Hoppe does in his book on democracy, have to do with fighting against the government? That is the question.
Sincerely, Luke Fitzhugh
I’ll let Prof. Hoppe answer your charges against his magnificent book, The God that Failed. (By the way in my view this book is must reading for all libertarians.) Again, however, I think I speak for the two of us when I say that criticism of groups such as (left wing) feminists, blacks, the elderly, the handicapped, fat people, and, yes, also homosexuals, is justified on the ground that they, or at least their majority spokesmen, demand special affirmative action privileges that violate the rights of the rest of us.
I would also add that many people engage in certain self-destructive behaviors because they know the govt will always bail them out if they get sick and that govt will mandate that private sector won’t penalize them
arielb:
“Yes but I think Walter Block could’ve made his case without bashing the Red Cross and urging donations for the Mises Inst.”
He could’ve. But why should he have?
Must we preserve the tender regard we’re all supposed to have for agencies corrupted by statist interests?
The statists want us to be too polite to call a spade a spade. That’s a big component of their clinging to power. Let’s not be saps.
By the same token, I recommend never contributing to the similarly much-iconized American Cancer Society and American Heart Association. These money-magnets are first and foremost shills for the State’s socialist health interventions and the State’s medical practice protection monopoly, the American Medical Association.
And don’t get me started on the pernicious “United Way.”
Walter Block:
“Just think in terms of a new Washington Post with Lew Rockwell as publisher and Jeff Tucker as editor. Or, think of a new Fox News with these two in similar positions.”
With all due respect (and great admiration for your other comments here), those particulars are off the mark. There are way too many powerful interests for something like that to become viable.
What friends of freedom need to do is stay atop the emerging technologies of communication that are slowly breaking the gatekeeping operations of the MSM. This website is one of many. Someday the LMI — or just you sitting at your desk — may be able to send out programming to millions. Meanwhile, the MSM newspapers are progressively tanking, the broadcast network State-created trust ratings are down, and we’re increasingly getting our message out our own way.
Let’s all do our research and dialogue, let’s learn and push the new technologies of communication, and, with patience and determination, we might just turn things around one day. (A much sounder prospect in this time of change than the Sisyphusian, self-corrupting electoral game.)
Bruno Panetta:
“Don’t worry: after your comments on the Red Cross in the original article and on LR’s site, it’s most unlikely that either of these guys will donate even a cent to the Mises Institute.”
Don’t worry: the left-wing Bill Gates and the lefter-wing George Soros were never going to anyway.
We aren’t going to get anywhere if we censor the truth in pursuit of conventional respectability. Unless we stand for principle and wake people up to the way things are, we might as well forget it.
David White:
“As much as I admire Ron Paul, one might as well send a virgin to reform a whorehouse, as Nock famously suggested[....]”
Paul isn’t reforming Congress, and I hope he’s realistic enough to know that. Insteady, he’s brilliantly and tirelessly using the platform of being Congress’s only principled paleolibertarian to illuminate the nature of our government and spread that word to countless thousands.
Unfortunately, there’s remote prospect of another such a well-situated, uncompromising communicator arising for generations to come, so I wouldn’t put much stock in turning to the electoral system as a way to effect change.
Amy Denton:
“Perhaps if Dr. Block is ever ‘in the middle of a disaster’ he would refuse the Red Cross’s offer of food, water and medical assistance in the interest of holding true to his principles.”
More to the point, people could give their money to better groups. And if not for the hand of government, this crisis wouldn’t have occurred anyway, certainly not with anywhere near this degree of magnitude.
Luke Fitzhugh:
“The ranting against homosexuals and the promotion of heterosexuality found in the writings of Block and Hoppe are an affront to people who otherwise support the Mises Institute and its efforts.”
As that accusation, whatever its merit, isn’t part of this topic, it seems as though you’re the one ranting here.
Walter Block:
I really can’t see which privileges homosexuals demand which would violate the rights of the rest of us. I don’t see how my rights would be violated by allowing gay couples to get married or to adopt children.
Second, since 1985, when the AIDS epidemic was barely beginning, the Red Cross has permanently banned all gay and bisexual male donors (to be precise, any man who ever engaged in homosexual sex since 1977 can never donate blood). It doesn’t even matter if they can prove they are not HIV+. In fact you cannot even donate blood if over the past 12 months you have had sexual contact with a man who falls in the previous category. They have stuck to this ban in spite of considerable pressure from gay rights activists and people who claim that the ban is counterproductive. I agree that there are many grounds for criticism when it comes to the Red Cross, but political correctness is not one of them.
The eligibility requirements of the RC for blood donation can be checked at the URL
http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html
Note that they also permanently exclude a large number of Africans and everyone who had sexual contacts with them since 1977.
Bruno: I do know which privilegies homosexuals demand which violate the rights of others. Here in Sweden the “gay rights”-lobby have pushed through legislation which outlaws negative comments about homosexuals (Similar to earlier “hate speech laws” which outlawed negative comments about ethnic minorities but that can’t be blamed on the “gay rights”-lobby).
In addition there is of course also the issue of anti-discrimination laws which also violate property rights.
Has anyone of you done any research regarding the virus HIV which progresses to AIDS. The fastest growing population of people infected with HIV is the heterosexual population – this according to one of our infectious disease experts at the hospital where I work. In addition to this, the elderly population has an ever increasing rate of HIV infection due to lack of education and the fact that they don’t fear pregnancy and then don’t use condoms. Homosexuals/hetherosexuals is neither here nor there anymore. Doesn’t matter. Let’s move on. Anyone having any kind of intercourse is at risk for acquiring the disease and passing it on through the blood supply. Logically all can donate but the blood has to be carefully screened. Of course, informed consent includes an explanation of the risk for acquiring HIV, hepatitis A,B and C and of course diseases that exist that we don’t know about yet. Then there are the transfusion reactions and on and on. It is the responsibility of the donaters to know their status and the responsibility of the caregivers to provide as safe a product as possible. It is the responsibility of the recipients to understand acceptable risks and benefits with the help of these providers. Morally speaking – everyone is responsible. Anyone commenting here is responsible for having accurate information. Look it up on the CDC website.
The fastest growing population of people infected with HIV is the heterosexual population…
I’m not even exactly sure what this is supposed to mean, but any possible meaning is disingenuous. I don’t know the figures off the top of my head, but a vastly higher percentage of homosexuals are HIV-positive than heterosexuals. It is not surprising, then, that the growth rate is greater among heterosexuals (if that’s what you’re trying to say), since a substantial chunk of homosexuals are already infected.
I’m going to formulate my own, personal activity since there aren’t any great jobs available to choose from.
Could any individual provide any suggestions or web pages about how to apply for government grant money to implement my personal small business? I have been looking on the internet but each and every website requires for money and I have been previously told by the unemployment office to avoid the sites that ask for money for grant info because they’re scammers. I’d personally be sincerely grateful for any support.
Comments on this entry are closed.