The State and the Flood
What we are seeing in New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast region is the most egregious example of government failure in the United States since September 11, 2001. Mother Nature can be cruel, but even at her worst, she is no match for government. And though our public servants and a sycophantic media will do their darn best to present this calamity as an act of nature, it was not and is not. Katrina came and went with far less damage than anyone expected. It was the failure of the public infrastructure and the response to it that brought down civilization. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (124)
It’s a terrible tragedy how incompetent the government has been in a) building levies to prevent the flooding, b) protecting private property, c) rescuing people, d) providing food and water and the list goes on and on. As Terry Ebbert, New Orleans' emergency operations chief said “This is a national disgrace� on Fox News. Another story told that around a 100 people died while waiting for buses. While in the meanwhile the police won’t let family members get in to pick up there relatives(that are going without food for 2 days) at the convention centre, see Michael Barnett’s blog. It’s just beyond my reasoning capacity what is happening there.
Published: September 2, 2005 6:40 AM
I feel so bad for the people who could not leave. Who knows how many will die in the end, how many will be scarred for life, and how many (a good amount I'm sure) will not return, ever.
Published: September 2, 2005 7:49 AM
Brilliant, Lew, the greater tragedy, sadly, being how few will agree or even have the capacity to understand, so steeped are they in the ideology of the state.
Published: September 2, 2005 7:59 AM
I doubt very much a national debate will ensue regarding this incompetence. Nor will one be raised as to why so many in the midst of this were in such a position of complete and total dependence on the state for their welfare. Nor will anyone question how we have been forced to subsidize a pathetic sub culture that has lost touch with right and wrong -- i speak of the ones with so few morals that they resort to looting electronics and other non-essentials, shooting at aid workers, and rape -- all in the midst of such a tragedy.
With the rules of right and wrong AND self sufficiency rendered largely moot via subsidization of economically unviable (e.g. dependent on forcing others to pay for it) life choices, this is what the state has created.
Oh, the new and improved American way…
Published: September 2, 2005 8:25 AM
I must admit that I have defended the emergency relief efforts in several debates over the last 2 days. I still think it is likely that it will start functioning better as time goes on, but I could be completely wrong; or it could be that the private efforts (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) completely take over almost all critical operations except possibly security.
As for Rockwell's criticism of the government's incompetent maintenance of the infrastructure, I would completely agree.
Published: September 2, 2005 8:45 AM
Who is following the interviews with mayor Nagin? He is really pissed off, which of course is entirely justified. It’s wonderful to hear a politician speak the truth about what’s going on. He just said “There[the government] feeding the public a line of bull�, he also admits “I’m probably gonna get in a lot of trouble for saying this� when he talked about Iraq and Bush his policies. Unbelievable!
Published: September 2, 2005 9:02 AM
Sure it is the fault of the "state" for building those levies. The "state" should never have done that. Everyone in New Orleans should have build a flood wall of their own around their homes. One that would stand up to a cat 3 hurricane. Or a cat 4. Or a cat 5. Whatever they could afford for themselves.
Just as the people of Biloxi have done. And Gulfport.
I'm generally on board here. This one is just nutty though. Bad generalizations drawn from a bad situation. Assuming that there was ANY way to stand in the way of nature's destructive power - and that the failure was the fault of the "state."
Published: September 2, 2005 9:14 AM
What is the worst part about this is that you know the federal goverment will dump billions into NO only to see the situation set up for another disaster.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:15 AM
c meng,
How many would be living below sea level in New Orleans if the levees had never been built in the first place. The region got off lucky this week. If Katrina had not weakened and changed course, it is possible that those 100,000+, most of whom stayed by their own foolish risk assessment, (I know this is harsh, but it is true), would have drowned when the levees were not breached but simply washed away.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:27 AM
We didn't hear of mass looting after the tsunami. Why not?
The US govt got aid to the tsunami area in 2 days. Why not the flood area? Is this an intentional plan to acclimate Americans to Army rule?
Published: September 2, 2005 9:28 AM
For those of you that wan't more information on why the levee broke, here’s a article about it.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:36 AM
C. Meng: The point is that the real disaster occurred _when the levees failed_. It had been known for decades that levees _made the situation worse_ & that they would break. 'Public' sector bodies knew all this, decades ago, but quite naturally, persisted with more & higher levees. 'Public' officials did _not_ implement other measures that were known, from experience, to _prevent_ levee failure & to actually drain the water away effectively. Naturally we cannot expect 'public' officials to accept this -- they will _have_ to blame Mother Nature. But no one else need believe them or remain ignorant of the facts.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:41 AM
Lew is right, he misses some things though.
This proves beyond a doubt the fraud of the government the past few years since 9/11. The DHS, FEMA, both of these organizations failed, beyond a doubt in this situation. We have paid billions to these "helpful" organizations to deal with disasters, natural or caused by terrorists. It proves we are no better off than before 9/11.
It shows at the face of it the failures of our entire government. It shows the fraud, the lies which we are fed about how we will be prepared in another attack by terrorists. Imagine a major attack upon New York City, millions in an entire city, they can't even deal with a million people in LA.
This should have been a BY the book textbook recovery effort. They had 2 days prior notice to this event, there is no reason it shouldn't have happened. I didn't expect a perfect reaction to help with the recovery, but this has been beyond pathetic. This is disgraceful.
I would hope my fellow Americans would see the fraud, but they will give more power to the federal government, yet again to help prepare for disasters. Only to be let down again.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:54 AM
Prof. Shenoy,
quote:
Naturally we cannot expect 'public' officials to accept this -- they will _have_ to blame Mother Nature.
I'd suspect that, if at all possible -- by any ridiculous stretch of the imagination -- they're going to blame the free market: those greedy capitalist pigs. From someone else' comment, it seems many are already doing such (e.g., it's the fault of the companies who built the houses, the insurance companies, etc).
Published: September 2, 2005 9:54 AM
What an absurd, ideology-driven column. Not EVERY event vindicates pure libertarian ideology.
The "lessons" of Katrina are easy: disaster agencies should be better funded; we need to tend to our infrastructure; and we pay a price for having thousands of National Guardsmen on occupation duty in Iraq. The last lesson is broadly "Austrian." However, the first two cut directly across the Austrian grain, as least as represented by this increasingly silly website.
And, alas, private sector failure is almost as common as government failure (ask Enron shareholders).
The article is also factually inaccurate: as everyone now knows, the police were NOT on the streets en masse after Katrina.
Bad article. Dumb article.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:18 AM
I think Heinrich is correct based on my surfing of the blogs. The most prevalent theme at the moment is blaming the Bush Administration. That the theme totally ignores the decades of incompetent management of the infrastructure by all levels of government, is a bit discouraging. It tells me that the Left will eventually use this as a proxy for an attack on private enterprise, since they blindly assume the Bush Administration is free-market friendly.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:19 AM
Bruce,
Really, how much more money must be spent on all of the various government programs that are, and have been, incompetently managed, today, and for decades, before you would question whether they would ever be successful?
Published: September 2, 2005 10:29 AM
Congratulations, Lew. Loved the article.
I was musing: what if this flood were to happen in downtown Manhattan? Do you think the white-collar professionals would have to wait for a week before getting a bottle of Evian? These actions and inactions by the government are a clear example of disdain and indifference to the poorer citizens of the USA. Why, they are being treated akin to mudslide victims of South America. It is borderline criminal that the levees were not reinforced to withstand such pressure; will those who are responsible be charged in court? Hopefully. For the government however, it's Mother Nature's fault. Let's run with that line and dump more money into Iraq.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:30 AM
Bruce,
Check, the complete and total failure of government agencies is a reason to give them even more money. In similar manner, the appropriate reaction of the stock-market and shareholders to Enron should have been to give them more money: obviously, if they're doing poorly, they need more money.
In reality, the reverse is true. Incompetence and dishonesty -- as is seen in all levels of the State and all agencies -- is a reason to completely eliminate funding. This is what quickly happened on the market regarding Enron.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:33 AM
There are businesses such as the Hilton who have their own armed guards and who are providing their clients with food and water. They had busses coming to shuttle their guests out of town, but they were commandeered by the "authorities." Another lady was driving her SUV out of town when it was taken by the police who told her she would not be getting it back. This behavior discourages individual responsibility and preparation, violates rights to private property and further fosters and subsidizes the helpless, unprepared, victimized mentality shared by so many in the region.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:41 AM
Guys, I just had a clever idea for using Hurricane Katrina as a way to put Austrianism on the map: The Mises Institute Board should put out a press release calling for the elimination of all federal funding for FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, state National Guards, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Boy, if we do that, Americans will really take us seriously. We'll finally break out of our political and intellectual ghetto!
Published: September 2, 2005 10:58 AM
First, allow me to say that my thoughts and prayers are with those suffering in my home state of Louisiana and in all areas affected by the hurricane.
Lew makes some excellent points. Public management of the city's defenses transfered responsibility for the protection of the city to those with minimal competence and sense of ownership. This has resulted in tragic loss of life and personal injury and tremendous destruction of private property and economic potential.
However, equally atrocious has been the government's response, misallocating resources, ignoring personal liberty without hesitation, and relying on the arbitrary use of violence (and threats of violence) to attempt to portray a sense of order to the public.
This situation reminds me of why I support free market capitalism: in the words of Ayn Rand, "capitalism is not merely the 'practical,' but the only moral system in history." The free market is practical because private ownership would have undoubtedly prevented a great deal of the misery, death, and destruction of recent days; and, it is moral because capitalism is the only system that protects the rights and property of the individual against the intrusions of the government.
As we have seen in the past few days, the government's respect for our private property and personal liberty has been diluted to the point of disintegration, and, sadly, the government will undoubtedly attempt to use the chaos brought about by its own incompetence and mismanagement to further extend its control and authority.
Published: September 2, 2005 11:01 AM
The failure on behalf of the government is clear. Hopefully there will be a national debate as everyone I talk to can't understand why it is taking so long to evacuate people out of N.O. The answer is clear to most, that FEMA is completly incompetent. Christ, it is too soon to think of the magnitude though, there are still thousands of people trapped in hospitals and other buildings who will probably die. This is 5 days without running water and food.
Published: September 2, 2005 11:07 AM
Excellent article. I've been waiting for someone to write something to this effect, and it figures that someone would be Lew.
I note that many conservatives in the media are picking up on the same things, although some are doing their best to keep from criticizing the federal government because it's run by Republicans. On the other hand, Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush Limbaugh today, had an excellent first-hour diatribe against the expense, waste, sloth, and incompetence of government vis a vis the hurricane aftermath, and he didn't spare the feds any blame. The question then is: If the government is so incompetent (and worse) when it comes to relatively routine domestic issues like this, how can it be trusted to remake entire foreign countries?
Published: September 2, 2005 12:15 PM
Bruce: Taxes are levied (inter alia) in order to provide emergency services -- we are told. As it happens, it is precisely in this major emergency that govt services are conspicous by their absence. The people who are _not_ part of the emergency are precisely those who were able to get away & were helped _spontaneously_ by those who provided shelter (in churches, private homes, etc.), food, & water. It is the most helpless who are clearly _not_ being helped by the supposed agency of last resort, the govt. Surely it is necessary to underline these facts: spontaneous, effective, assistance vs. tax-funded _non_-assistance? Can the emergency services say, 'This was an emergency, we couldn't do anything'?
Published: September 2, 2005 12:21 PM
People were living there BEFORE any levies were built. THEN people started building levies. THEN the area began sinking.
As to the point that the Real Disaster occured when the levies failed, that is correct. So what? The real disaster was caused by the hurricane and the water it brought.
If my car has a steering problem because I ran over a curb that the city built is it the City's fault? When the storm sewer backs up after the 100 yr rain, city's fault?
People that expect some sort of perfection from government, under all circumstances, are as nutty as the people who did not leave New Orleans when they were advised to go.
Published: September 2, 2005 12:24 PM
c meng,
The point is that people do expect perfection from government. What is nutty is that the repeated demonstrations of government's incompetence seems to make no dent in this belief. All I have heard on the news the last few days is how even more money needs to be spent on disaster preparation. History shows that it will all be wasted. Repeat cycle.
The proper response to this crisis should be the abandonment of the city location, since it will be hit by an even stronger hurricane in the future. I know this will not be the response. We will spend in excess of 100 billion dollars rebuilding it, only to see it flooded again in the future.
Published: September 2, 2005 12:38 PM
There's a little bit of my favorite theme in these comments, and it is the ways in which people change in response to what happens.
The people living in N.O. before levies were built were certainly aware of floods that came through every now and then, leaving water that would not drain away. They were, of course, prepared for this kind of thing. I don't know if the original levies were public projects or private projects, but eventually, they were public projects.
Public projects enrich those who work on them at the expense of the rest of the citizenry. So of course, everyone working on them says how great they are. Do they put up money for these projects and expect a return? No. Why not? Who knows? If the people building the project are not investing in it, won't their motivation to it right be a little lower? Anyway, in addition to this effect of weakened quality, those very same people encourage everyone to believe in the project. It is this belief that opens the flood-gates of tax money that comes to them.
So the propaganda is out, and the people begin to "believe in" their government that builds these large protective levies. This change in those people is what allows them to invest ever more of their livelihood in the flood-plain. This change, whose seed is the idea of a "public project to protect our city" is what led them to the disaster.
People expect from the government whatever the government tells them to expect. The same thing goes for private companies like Enron. In one case, the unmet expectation destroys the institution that mislead people. In the other, it makes that failing institution stronger.
How many times does the government have to fail an individual person before that person realizes that there's a fundamental problem with it? I believe the number is falling and will continue to fall as people become more and more connected through the Internet, blogs, cell phones, etc. We are learning. Bruce might be close ;-)
Published: September 2, 2005 12:58 PM
Prof. Shenoy,
No one would dispute that government emergency services have failed to respond to Katrina in a way that would satisfy any taxpayer, let alone the residents of Lousiana and Mississippi.
What I do dispute is the suggestion that the failure was inevitable or that the solution to failure is to do away with emergency services altogether. What should the people trapped in the Convention Center do: pool their money, send up a smoke signal, and ask Dominoes to deliver pizza? Or should they send a signal to Wackenhut, offering to hire security guards to keep them safe?
Probably not. Maybe Katrina is a reminder that government does have a vital role to play in some situations -- and that the concerned agencies must be well-funded and well-managed, and have well-trained personnel, to do their job.
Unfortunately, many Austrians have such a simplistic, tax-cut-focused, and ideological view of government that they can't distinguish between improving key government services and mindlessly eliminating them. This is a distinction required of any serious libertarian movement. Unfortunately, too many Austrians aren't really serious.
But, fortunately, you are. I've loved reading your economics essays over the years. Your essay on stagflation back in the 1970s was one of my first introductions to serious Austrian economics. Thanks.
Bruce
Published: September 2, 2005 1:11 PM
It goes to show what I've often said. Bad civil engineering is second only to war in causes of human misery.
Published: September 2, 2005 1:16 PM
I guess this is government breaking your legs and giving you a defective crutch. And the discussion surrounding the problems mainly deal with the crutch, though some noted the broken legs (the building in below sea level areas made possible by the levees).
I posted a comment to the Toqueville article which probably applies here.
But a few key points:
A Levee is a public good, even if maintained properly. Everyone on the far side benefits since you can't make the torrent hit the nonpayer's properties. That doesn't mean it would be uneconomic - all the property values might rise well in excess of a (good, Cat 5 surviving) levee. But there is no way to capture even part of that increase in value unless you do some kind of property assessment (e.g. a lein to be paid when the property is sold). It might be in everyone's interest to build a levee, but it is in no individual's interest to pay for it.
I suppose if you manage to go into a greenfield, and your misean idea of property rights based on improvement would extend to hundreds of square miles which might be protected by such a structure, you could build it and then claim that newly protected land, but most places are already occupied to some extent, and the land which would be protected is owned.
One further note (expanded on the Touqueville thread) is that "private agency" may mean Linux-Apache-OpenOffice instead of Microsoft, the Red Cross instead of Health South. A public good might be best served by an open and accountable nonprofit institution (instead of either government or an Enron).
Published: September 2, 2005 1:23 PM
This article needed to be written, thanks Lew. This is a tradgedy and although one can argue that most people who did not leave, did erroneously assess the risk they faced -- many were unable to do so (a governemnt-free system prior to Katrina could have solved that problem).
We must all be aware that at a time like this the human suffering is the first thing we must address and ensure that our principles don't come across as callous or uncarring (remember, most people don't understand our view point and it must be presented in a manner that the receiver of our wisdom can understand).
We must also brace for the ripple effect this will have for us nationally, of course, this problem is aggravated by the intervention of government at all levels.
Another point that we must be cautious to monitor is that in our zeal to show that we are right, and we are, we have to temper our dismisal of the environment in which we operate. We live in a neo-collectivist, moderately free society with an ever-growing, interventonist government. Given that, the only reponse that is viable is use of our collective (forced, nonetheless) resources (the governement monopoly)to save lives and restore as much order as possible. Yes, I am advocating military action, we have no choice -- today -- the people left behind are slaves of the state, they cannot function in a truly free society without more knowledge and socialization to individual responsibility and personal choice and disposal of one's own property. They have no concept of it and the criminals are wreaking havoc. We will not get our message accross by condeming them for not having listened to us before. Humans act with purpose in the now and in the future -- we must take this opportunity to bring our message to the collectivized masses without alienating them from it. Compassion, respect for the operational environment and a practical adherence to the principles of freedom are needed. Sic Semper Tyranus.
Published: September 2, 2005 1:29 PM
Bruce,
How many people would have stayed in New Orleans if they had no expectation that someone would come to rescue them, or that levees would protect them from a category 5 hurricane (which Katrina was just before it made landfall)? How many people would have made no contingency plans for infirm relatives, friends, etc.? Though I know some people are foolish in the face of such events (there are studies that show >10% of a population refuses to evacuate, even in the event of major hurricane right on their doorstep), I was shocked to see that maybe a quarter of the population of New Orleans was still in the city when the hurricane struck. Certainly not all, or even half, of these people would have found it impossible to get out, if only they hadn't waited until Saturday to even consider the possibility that it might have been wise to do so. The expectation that government would find a way to evacuate them quickly in the face of disaster has increased the number who have died. The next time, that expectation will probably be higher since we will promise ourselves that government will perform better because we have spent even more money.
Published: September 2, 2005 1:30 PM
Good point. In fact, the higher the death toll, the better off everyone will be in the long run. Let's get rid of the police and fire departments while we're doing away with FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Then LOTS and LOTS of people will die -- and everyone will be better off!
There's nothing like piles of corpses to make people take moral hazard seriously. Sheeesh...
Published: September 2, 2005 1:51 PM
Bruce,
If we make no changes, we will just repeat this week's mistakes. I don't expect changes- I expect it will get worse. What is wrong with telling people right up front that you are expected to evacuate yourself if you want to survive an oncoming hurricane? A lot of the people who got trapped in New Orleans, could have escaped if they had just planned to do so beforehand. I simply refuse to accept that it was impossible to clear the city by any other means than government doing it.
Published: September 2, 2005 1:59 PM
I find it sad that we have to make points with each other that are so heated and antagonistic. No wonder our message falls on deaf ears. We have to be aware that the theoretical discussion of what really works in the world, praxeologically, is necessary in order to bring a natural, free order to the world; however, the environment we are currently in is not perfect and contains the ripples of intervtionism. They cannot be ignored. When one of us uses thei horrible, real world example to prove an ideal point and the other responds to the practical nature of these terrible events -- we are not speaking the same language. Temper yourselves.
I don't think anyone is advocating more dead bodies to prove a point; but, since this is GOING to happen anyway, at least, some a good lesson can be learned. We cannot do away with the military and police presence today in the Big Easy and accross the Gulf Coast. They are the only viable, immediate solutions. That doesn't mean that it is a good thing in the first place or one that should be perpetuated in the future. Be kind to each other, we all want the same free world to live our own way within.
Published: September 2, 2005 2:00 PM
Marvan, good point -- politeness is important even if we disagree. Bruce
Published: September 2, 2005 2:11 PM
Bruce,
I didn't mean to be impolite, and I hope that you didn't take it that way, but if you did, I apologize.
Published: September 2, 2005 2:25 PM
Yancey, no, no, actually I was apologizing to you! Enough of this debating. The day is already too grim. Bruce
Published: September 2, 2005 2:30 PM
I hope that I didn't upset anyone. My point is that we have to be united in our velocity toward true freedom despite our minor differnces. We have an important message to share and most people want to hear it, they just don't know that. We have to address the current crisis, which includes The Gulf Coast but is not limited to it, while we keep our eye on the bigger picture. Bruce, Yancey, we are on the same chapter -- sometimes, we just read a different page.
Published: September 2, 2005 2:44 PM
We all want the same end result, namely that the evacuation and supply of food will be much and much better next time a hurricane will hit a city. We just have different theories on how to achieve this, one thinks we should spend more on it trough government, and the other thinks the free market can provide for better “protection� against natural disasters. I personally belong to the latter party. Since I believe that the free market will, as with other products, be far more efficient. In the country where I live in we heavily depend on levies, since as we speak I’m 7 meters under sea level, but most of the large cities here in the Netherlands have levee systems that were privately built in the middle ages (of course the originals have been replaced). But why did they get built? Because there was demand for them, and where there is a large demand usually somebody will supply it. As would happen on the free market, for levee systems, evacuation teams, protection agencies and the lot.
Of course it would be silly to cut FEMA and the NG as we speak, there all we got at the moment, no market has yet been established for those services. But lets cut the discussing it’s indeed been a sad day. We’ve all seen and heard terrible things that I hope will be prevented in the future on way or another.
Published: September 2, 2005 3:16 PM
Lew: Bravo on every point. Thank you. You remotivated me for my letter to the editor on these points that I was going to skip.
Bruce:
A side note I can't let slide. You said: "And, alas, private sector failure is almost as common as government failure (ask Enron shareholders)."
If you eliminate: late 90's inflationary policy (fed gov't); caps on salary deducations (fed gov't); corporate income tax (fed gov't)and dividend tax issues (fed govt) all of which create a bias away from cash flow and toward debt and gains through cap gains, you eliminate the events of world com and enron because they never occur. Enron is a classic validation of Austrian theory and also demonstrates a cultural element--nothing brings out the greed (in the negative sense) like a little inflation. Doesn't mean the enron guys weren't bad guys, I suspect they were, but the federal government created the conditions required to give them their shot. The market is the only thing that worked right--liquidating the scam thereby containing the damage. And Enron can't put a gun to my head and demand more funding so they can screw me or whomever again.
BTW, I suspect if Dominos had gotten a call, they might have found a way to get it there! I think it's papa johns getting people fed in Houston.
Published: September 2, 2005 3:25 PM
Rockwell missed a crucial point in his otherwise flawless article. The general attitude and tone of the victims of the flood.
Because they expect the government to do all the work, they virtually refuse to help each other or themselves. They have that attitude they're "poor, helpless" impoverished victims. "SAVE US, WE CAN"T DO IT!" "WHERE"S THE GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU NEED IT" is all the BS I hear on the news.
It is Exactly as what mises said, "ideas and ideas alone can change the world" so the popular idea of "let the government take responsibilty of my all my problems, cuz i can't do anything im a victim of the system"
They should take a lesson from the victims of Ivan last year, when rockwell wrote the great article "in crisis markets more than ever". Where the spirit of the victims carried them though the tradegy and return to normalcy without the government at all. Because they BELIEVED in themselves
The real tragedy here the tone of helplessless. A flood of state dependency if you will.
Published: September 2, 2005 3:58 PM
so the government should have improved the levies? wouldn't that result in more taxes?
Published: September 2, 2005 3:59 PM
one other side question, if private insurance firms had been in charge of things like levies instead, how could you possibly avoid free riders?
Published: September 2, 2005 4:04 PM
Som,
I have noted the same attitude, but I have tried not to criticize it for one reason: a lot of the people I have seen the last few days have been physically restrained inside the Superdome and the surrounding area. As far as I can tell, no private vehicles have been allowed to drive in and pick up people with government OK, and the people within have not been allowed to walk out. They really are prisoners, in my opinion, at least now, and I think they have earned a bit of latitude to complain vigorously in the aftermath.
Published: September 2, 2005 4:12 PM
That should have read "without government OK."
I need some coffee.
Published: September 2, 2005 4:13 PM
Daily Sun Link
The title is a play on the Sex Pistols song, but the words anarchy and chaos are still used interchangeably in the article. If anyone can find the link to the cover (I can't find it anymore) it simply reads "ANARCHY" in huge type.
I'm new to this site and I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it seems that the term "anarcho-capitalism" needs to be thrown out as completely useless, especially in the PR sense.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:05 PM
Sorry, I meant The Sun, the British tabloid, instead of Daily Sun.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:10 PM
The argument presented above -- that the moment the state assumes responsibility for something, it relieves private individuals and organizations of any blame for the consequences of their own inaction -- is absolutely NOT a libertarian position.
Real libertarians are out there on the ground proving the greater effectiveness of NGOs in providing disaster relief for all to see, not seizing on the misfortune to spout boilerplate blame-the-state-for-everything/private-ownership-eliminates-all-incompetence fantasy.
New Orleans is a city populated by adult individuals of free will, all of whom depend equally on the structural integrity of those levees. Who exactly has been stopping the city's free thinkers over the past 40 years from organizing, publicizing, and funding projects to fix the problem by hiring private engineering firms to assist/supplant existing efforts?
Here's a shocking premise: why not quit complaining about the status quo and start putting our money where our mouth is by building ALTERNATIVES to state authority and 'public works'? If we're ever going to prove the viability of life without Big Brother, it's going to take more than adding our voice to the Chorus of Blame whenever things go wrong and perenially waiting, waiting, waiting for the state to 'get out of the way' before we act.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:16 PM
If there's one thing we all can be sure of, in the coming weeks we're going to hear more and more televised pleas for more taxes from both parts of the statist camp.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:26 PM
Scott --
one other side question, if private insurance firms had been in charge of things like levies instead, how could you possibly avoid free riders?
And precisely why free-riding is a problem?
Free-riding increases fees for payers, and at some points starts driving them out to ares not afflicted with free riding, thus cutting off the free-rider's supply of "free" goods.
The end result is that the affected area becomes less habitable (and, therefore cheap) allowing, eventually, an acquisition by a single interest, which can then coordinate maintenance fee collection in form of rents or sales conditional on contracts to pay for the common good.
In other words, "free riding" is a market signal about wrong/inefficient property lines. Just like other market signals it causes free market to correct the situation.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:39 PM
one other side question, if private insurance firms had been in charge of things like levies instead, how could you possibly avoid free riders?
It seems to me like homeowners association could be the mechanism for flood control in a free market. Imagine a group of people arrive in a new world and decide to start a town next to a river. They all want to build a levee, but no one wants to do it alone, so they make an agreement: They will all agree to maintain the levee (or pay a group of experts to do it for them). If any one person decides to sell his property, the agreement to maintain the levee will "run with the land," meaning that all successive buyers are bound by the same covenants as the original purchaser.
So, what if someone doesn't want to sign the agreement? Or, what if new people arrive later, and they just want a free ride? Well, it is in the interest of the people who made the original agreement to build a system that will not be too costly, so they will not need the help of the free riders to maintain it. If the home owners can no longer maintain the flood control system alone, then their predictions failed; they have no right to force others to help them. Of course, the original home owners could attempt to get the free riders to join in by threatening to no longer maintain the levee. However, if the free riders never join in, and the original home owners are forced to leave, the original home owners can only blame themselves, because they built a system they could no longer afford to maintain.
I believe this is what slowly took us towards Federal control of the flood control system. The local towns could no longer afford to keep up the systems they built. Rather than abandon the system they could no longer maintain, or move their towns, or develop less costly flood control systems, they took the help of the Federal Government. And as soon as they started depending on the federal government, the flood control projects became bigger and more costly to maintain, and the people grew more and more dependent on the federal government for flood control.
I think the private system would be better, because each person would understand the risks associated with their flood control system, since they would not willingly pay for something they know little about. Also, it would be in the immediate interests of the free riders to help the original home owners, because as soon as the original home owners threatened to stop working on a levee, insurance rates for everybody in the area would go up.
Published: September 2, 2005 5:52 PM
Lew:
Yet another excellent article. However, you are preaching to the choir. What a wonderful thing 20/20 hindsight is. Living in an earthquake zone in California, the hurricane Katrina experience has come as a wake-up call – it gives me an idea of what I can expect in the way of relief from State run services. Since I have little expectation of any change in the level of these services, I better prepare to fend for myself and family.
The disturbing thing is how complacent and unprepared I am. So, I think it is high time that I stop procrastinating and put together the emergency survival kit that I will need when the big one hits. It is clear that the recommended 3 day supply of food and water is inadequate. Since water appears to be the key to survival, a hiking kit with a good water filter plus iodine and chlorine would be a good investment. A radio and flashlight that do not require batteries would also seem to be a good idea. I have not yet figured out how to resolve the communication problem if phones and cell phones don’t work. I would advise the other bloggers who live in California to do the same and to share any good ideas they have.
Published: September 2, 2005 6:12 PM
Marwan writes We have an important message to share.
I don't like the idea that we have a single message around which we should unite. "It takes a village" to raise a child because each of us has biases and when we unite, the biases cancel each other out. This means that both the bad effects and the good effects of those biases are lost.
I don't mean to be contrarian, I just wanted to voice a feeling that Marwan's recipe for success may not be as effective as its antithesis. Let's all continue pointing out what we individually think are the best and most important points. mises.org is pretty sheltered from statists, so I'd assume it's pretty safe to bicker amongst ourselves here.
And I enjoy the bickering. It's true that sometimes the meat of a post is a sarcastic parody, and that is unfortunate, but over time, we will learn from each other because of our bickering, for we are intelligent people.
So I'll reiterate what's important to me:
* I looked up levees and levies: Levies are impositions of assessments, conscriptions of men for military service, or jeans. Levees are the mounds intended to protect us from swollen rivers.
* The people living in N.O. changed, learning to expect their (our) self-imposed socialism (tax-funded government) to protect them instead of the self-interest of levee builders (as described in a previous comment). Their expectation is what has destroyed their lives. To the degree they expect this system to help them, whether or not it actually does, it is destructive.
* When the expectation is met by the tax-funded government, it means that taxpayers are hosting the parasitic beneficiaries, which drives the best of the taxpayers away. (e.g. Internet businesses and banks that are off-shore)
* When the expectation is not met, the immediate destruction is obvious, but the response which is a demand to increase the tax burden in order to meet the expectation next time is still worse.
For me the root of the problem is entitlement - the expectation that others should help pay for what I want. I teach my children to avoid this, I avoid it, and I chastise people for voicing it in themselves. That's my message and I'm stickin' to it.
Published: September 2, 2005 6:48 PM
Sorry, I meant to mention the Netherlands when I referred to the self-interest of levee builders, as Maikel Van Zaanen described. Are those levees still privately maintained?
Also, note that the Army Corps of Engineers gets revenue from the entire U.S., whereas if the government maintaining levees in the Netherlands (if they are now public) proabably (hopefully) collects its revenue exclusively from the people they are protecting.
It's unfortunate that the market signal free-riders provide is perverted by government coercion rather than interpreted as a signal that levees are not worth their cost, as blah pointed out.
Published: September 2, 2005 7:01 PM
The homeowner association would have to be an incredible size to avoid free riders. Levies protect whole cities, hundreds of thousands of people at least.
No one is going to say "well i won't maintain it if you don't either" because they need value it's protection as much as the free rider.
Published: September 2, 2005 7:11 PM
Dave,
How do you know they don't want it, as opposed to saying they do want it but simply want others to pay for it? If I'm going to get something, I'd rather have it for free, obviously.
Published: September 2, 2005 7:13 PM
The homeowner association would have to be an incredible size to avoid free riders. Levies protect whole cities, hundreds of thousands of people at least.
I don't think that would be a problem. It would be similar to a company with a bunch of shareholders. The shareholders elect a few leaders, and the leaders use the budget to hire experts to maintain the levees.
No one is going to say "well i won't maintain it if you don't either" because they need value it's protection as much as the free rider.
You're right that threats won't completely eliminate free riders, but I think the system would still work just fine. Imagine a city of 100,000, and only 30,000 belong to an association that maintains the flood control system. The 30,000 might make an announcement saying, "Unless at least X number of people join this association, we're not maintaining the flood control system."
Allowing the flood control system to break down would not be good for the original 30,000, but they know that others stand to lose just as much as they do. Imagine that you own a business, and you have an office in that city. What are you going to do? Are you going to say, "Even though it would be completely reasonable and fair for me to help support this system, I will not be joining the association. I'm just going to take the risk that my building(s) might get destroyed, and insanely high insurance rates don't bother me." No, the rich and the middle class are going to join, because they can't just pack up and leave. They often own real estate, and they won't be able to sell it for very much if the risk of destruction is high.
Some of the poor might not join, but so what? It's good for the poor, because they get protection for free, and it's good for the business owners, because they get a bigger supply of labor. Even if the deal benefits one party more than another, there's nothing wrong with charity in the form of positive externalities. I would love to live in a world like that.
Published: September 2, 2005 8:28 PM
Dave,
Thanks for your comment -- I too like the 'bickering', we can all learn from each other. I simply meant that we don't need to be mean to each other.
Now, it's my turn to be contrarian -- We do have a message to share. We differ on some of the finer points (ie. limited goverment vs. anarcho-capitalism, etc.) but we are united in our drive for a free world. In Human Action, Mises states, "As a praxeological term, freedom refers to the sphere within which a acting individual is in a position to choose between alternative modes of action. A man is free in so far as he is permitted to choose ends and the means to be used for the attainment of those ends. A man's freedom is most rigidly restricted by the laws of nature as well as by the laws of praxeology. He cannot attain ends which are incompatible with one another."
We can differ, choice and variety make life worth living; however, we cannot be incompatible in our view of freedom and the desire for a life lived in liberty.
The point I wanted to impress upon the readers of this page is that we have to bring our message to the rest of the world. Not for their sake, but for ours, each individually.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:13 PM
Dave,
I want you to know that I totally agree with your point about entitlement. Good for you teaching your children that important lesson. It may be condesending, but I think that the complainers in New Orleans are 'adults' that never learned that lesson -- they opted for voluntary slavery and want to take the rest of this in to serfdom with them.
I think we have to teach them that lesson just like you teach your kids; although, I doubt they will cooperate as well.
Published: September 2, 2005 9:17 PM
Did anyone else
see this article??
Seems a 17 year old was more efficient at getting the city evacuated than the pros.
Published: September 2, 2005 10:03 PM
We have an acquaintance who went to New Orleans DESPITE the hurricane warnings. She stated that during the storm, authorities prevented people from leaving. I was not there so I AM NOT qualified to an opinion.
Another item. There were a few comments about police exappropriating private vehicles and of the like.
Yet another good reason for my having joined the military. I can state with certainity that NO one would take our SUV from us. Not a police-person, or a National Guards-person, etc. Likewise, NO female person with us would have bgeen raped, unless and util I had died defending us or a group containing us.
But then again, Freedom is a mindset. A favorite author of mine stated within his various fictin books, that "you can't enslave a FREE man, you can only kill him".
I too can imperfectly express myself within this blog. However...I HAVE done things, gone places, etc.
Theoretical rhetoric is fine and discourse should always be encouraged. BUT, after one leaves one's chair, one should be able to escape a bad situation. Know basic first aid. Know how to drop a large mammal from 300 yards. Dressing out and cooking same should be known as well.
As to comments about the the recipients of transfer payments. I have opinions concerning that issue, particularly in regards as to veterans. But I got lambasted by a person concerning my individual case.
Be advised thought, that many if not most of the most erudite sounding persons within these blogs, want EXACTLY the type of person I am. myself.
And when the Crunch comes, as it will, much sooner than most people can imagine, it shall be my vet friends and myself, actually DOING something about personal liberty and of the like,
while the "Scholars" need time to pack their things and try to evade and escape capture.
Respects,
JZ
Rockwell is to be praised for providing historical data concerning the levees once surrounding New Orleans. Thanks, I never knew.
THere was a singular point he made that I didn't agree with, but over-all, he simple and direct thesis found great favor in me.
jz
Published: September 2, 2005 10:39 PM
If we're to assign blame for the aftermath of natural disasters based on philosophical principle, then we ought to start in our own backyards, specifically our own lack of leadership.
Who exactly bears responsibility for laissez-faire's defeat at the hands of statism if not we ourselves, laissez-faire's chronically underperforming soldiers and salesmen? If it were a physical battle we'd be mostly dead, crippled, or captured. If it were our company stock it would be tanking. If it were our job we'd be fired. And like many here, constantly blaming the government or our 'culture' for our failures just like every other group of whiners.
Maybe, just maybe, those failures have something to do with our willingness to let the school of Corporate Infallibility be the public face of libertarianism. Like this hilariously counterintuitive assertion that not just a private organization but ANY private organization would automatically succeed where the Army Corps of Engineers failed, due to the 'sense of ownership' universally demonstrated by corporate personnel. Do corporations ever fail in their provision of mission-critical services? Never. How to prevent a repeat disaster? Sell the levees, to the Chinese or whoever can maximize shareholder value holding and flipping them.
Rejection of such wisdom by the political marketplace is as natural and certain as rejection of New Coke, Air America, or anything else that creates imaginary demand and meets the needs of no one except for those pushing it.
Published: September 2, 2005 11:37 PM
An old article perhaps relevant today...
"Federal Flood Insurance: Managing Risks or Creating It"
NFIP and coastal development by Sheldon Richman
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3h.html
Published: September 3, 2005 3:08 AM
C. Meng: 1. It is not a simple case of "storm sewers [backing] up after 100years' rain". Govt officials did _not_ build the necessary flood control structures (certain canals etc.) Because they did not do this: (a)the levees increased the possible damage (b) the water could not be held back (c) the levees also broke. The levees need _not_ have broken. Officials did only half the job; & what they did was also damaging.
2. The first levee was built around ?1781: so that people could actually live in New Orleans. The area has always been below sea level, it did not "sink". The levees built/increased in height since the 1920s -- have also increased the potential damage: because other necessary flood control structures have not been built (see above.)
Published: September 3, 2005 4:28 AM
Bruce: 1. "improving key government services"; "the concerned agencies must be well-funded and well-managed, and have well-trained personnel, to do their job".
Tax-funded bodies can only be organised & perform, bureaucratically. They are set up to ensure that tax monies are spent under the appropriate heads, on approved items, & not diverted to other non-approved heads. 'Emergency services' is a head of spending; officials, being honest, will faithfully ensure that tax monies are spent under this head, on approved items, & none other. They will be just as careful to spend monies under the head of 'training', 'management courses', 'improved services' etc. -- as many as one pleases. They will also faithfully carry out prescribed activites under the head of 'emergency services'; & carefully document what was done, besides carrying out reviews & documenting these. This is all they can do; & they can multiply all this as much as one pleases. (See Mises, 'Bureaucracy'.)
2. My understanding is that officials assembled people in the ?Superdome? ?Convention Centre? & forbade them to leave. Also, that officials forbade private people from entering New Orleans to take people out. ?If this is correct, then some spontaneous attempts to solve the problem were stifled, & people's situation was made worse than strictly necessary.
Published: September 3, 2005 4:56 AM
Dave,
To answer your question “if the levees here in The Netherlands are still privately owned�, I’m sad to say there not. From what I have read, particularly about the history of Amsterdam, when mayors were established for other purposes, such as expanding the city people found it easier to also give them the task of building levees, all was funded trough taxation. So when the city grew larger and provincial governments were established they got the job and so forth. But of course when the local and state governments got more power the became more inefficient. This resulted in that the levee systems weren’t prepared in 1960 when a massive flood came, killing near 2000 people and 70000 had to be evacuated. This caused the “Delta Works� to be build, don’t know if you ever heard about them, but there huge and very expensive all government funded. But in the last few year the government has proven to still be inefficient in controlling rivers from flooding. So there’s your levee history in The Netherlands.
About the free riding problem, which in my opinion has been solved in comments above. But I know that in ancient Greece when huge public works had to be build for protecting cities, they were funded by the wealthiest men in town, they considered it to be an honour and even got a higer status within the city. Maybe we can see private companies doing the same, creating some goodwill in the process. As in the "coca cola levee system".
Published: September 3, 2005 4:59 AM
Bruce: I forgot to say, Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad my writings were helpful.
Published: September 3, 2005 5:25 AM
Dr Block is back, he has written an atricle on the current events and it's posted at LRC
Published: September 3, 2005 8:37 AM
An interesting piece online: Three Thousand Years of Holding Back the Sea"--with most efforts having been undertaken privately.
Published: September 3, 2005 9:11 AM
Prof. Shenoy,
Maybe we are talking past each other, but I honestly don't understand your position.
Clearly, most emergency services failed in the aftermath of Katrina. The responsible officials should be held accountable. There's no argument about this.
But are you contending that the emergency services HAD to fail because all government activities invariably fail? Are you contending that we would be better off without any emergency services whatsoever? Are you saying that New Orleans would be better off right now -- today -- if the Army and National Guard hadn't arrived last night? Are you saying that the search and rescue activities of the Coast Guard (which responded superbly) didn't help the situation? Are you saying that the quality of government services has NO connection to funding levels, training, and management? Are you really proposing that we should rely on Dominos and Wackenhut to "respond" to emergencies?
I suspect that your answer to each of these questions is "No, of course not." The problem is that libertarian/Austrian rhetoric (not necessarily yours) often gives people the mistaken impression that the Austrian answer must be "Yes." This is one reason why Austrians seem so out of touch with the concerns of real people.
Bruce
One personal comment: I recently spent two years living in Johannesburg. South Africa has a huge private security industry. This industry helps to fill the gap left by the understaffed, poorly trained, and corrupt police, but it doesn't come close to filling the gap entirely. Any South African would just laugh at the idea that government services can't be improved and don't play an important role in securing freedom. (That said, Joburg is a GREAT city. It even has a libertarian movement!)
Published: September 3, 2005 9:33 AM
Bruce: 1. My point is that bureaucratic services have certain characteristics -- & must operate within those limits. It doesn't do to see them through rosy glasses. No doubt some govt officials will be dismissed -- but the service remains bureaucratic & will continue to operate that way. It also remains true that officials limited the amount of spontaneous help which was available. And it remains true that much of the problem was created by bureaucratic operation of the flood control system. The same bureaucratic system is found throughout. This means wariness about what it can actually do.
2. In any circumstances, peace is something which appears only when people generally practise it. Peace is not enforced. People generally are peaceful -- that is why (for example) production continues. How many police forces are _not_ small, corrupt, inefficient & badly paid? Certainly not many Asian ones (for example.) What is the general level of _routine_ violence in most Asian cities, from (say) Teheran to Taipei? How many (ordinary) people there feel it necessary to employ security guards? I would not describe Japan's population (for example) as full of violence repressed _only_ by an efficient police force. Nor would I describe the British or any of the European populations thus.
Published: September 3, 2005 10:21 AM
Prof. Shenoy,
One last personal anecdote: Before living in Johannesburg, I lived for three years in Chennai (another great city). There I came to know many NRIs with roots in India and the U.S. alike. All of them had mixed feelings about American culture and its impact on families. But one thing about America that they all applauded was the low level of corruption and the high level of public services, compared to India.
The point of this anecdote is that public services can be better or worse, effective or ineffective, depending on many factors. Austrians shouldn't jump them together. Our repeated failure to come up with policy prescriptions that reflect these realities has done more than anything else to keep Austrians in an intellectual and political ghetto.
Thanks for the discussion.
Bruce
Published: September 3, 2005 11:00 AM
Annother splendid and analytical rendition of the truth by the Rockwell!
When will the public sector finally hear, understand and act on the not often enough proclaimed, " government is part of the problem, not part of the solution"!
Published: September 3, 2005 3:43 PM
Scott,
You asked "How do you know they don't want it, as opposed to saying they do want it but simply want others to pay for it? If I'm going to get something, I'd rather have it for free, obviously."
I don't remember claiming to know that, but I think I know what you're referring to: free-loaders.
The conclusions drawn from "knowing they don't want it" can be drawn nearly as well from "knowing they are not willing to pay as much for it as the provider is requesting."
With regard to getting the things for free that you could pay for, as you continue receiving the free good, you may perhaps notice that it becomes less valuable to you, merely because it is free. This is a psychological downside of not paying the cost of what we get. You may also notice other benefits - social, moral, and material - accruing to the payers while you are left out.
This development of the relationship between a provider and a receiver when the initial price is zero is natural and put to excellent use by many private enterprises: Yahoo and Google (very successfully) netzero (not so successfully), and churches everywhere (very successfully).
Dave.
Published: September 3, 2005 6:26 PM
This article should be spread to the general public as well. More people must read this!
Published: September 3, 2005 7:02 PM
Bruce: Very many thanks indeed for the discussion. It helped me. Two points: (1) There are surely other differences between life in Madras & in the US -- ie, the difference with govt officials is not the only thing that differs between the two. In other words, there are differences _at all levels_ between DCs & LDCs. (2)The starting-point surely is the services & outputs needing to be supplied. The question then is, the best method of supply. Eg, Dunkirk: spontaneous methods got the bulk of the soldiers off, quickly. --- Thanks very much again.
Published: September 4, 2005 12:21 AM
The idea of turning the nation's infrastructure over to private interests sounds all well and fine in the name of efficiency. But what happens if this "private interest" that buys it happens to be a Chinese backed corporation or backed by some other hostile foreign government? What then? We must be careful of what we ask for!
Published: September 4, 2005 7:48 AM
Good Question, Steve.
Another question is, "What happens when "we" respond to the lowest price possible on consumer goods?"
Another question is, "What happens when the provider of the lowest price possible on consumer goods is putting excess profits into "our" deficit public spending?"
Another question is, "What does it matter how we choose to sell ourselves?"
Published: September 4, 2005 10:48 AM
The media are (of course) saying that the problem was that Mr Bush did not spend enough taxpayers money. And academia is saying the same thing.
Everyone interviewed (at least on British broacast media and in newspapers) from the area has been saying either "President Bush, help us" or attacking him for not doing enough.
Not a single person has expressed any doubts in the ability of statism (with the correct LEADER) to do anything.
No doubt there is some selection at work here with "right wing nuts" not being interviewed, but I do not think that there has been a lot of selection.
We all know the truth, (which has been obvious since at least the election of 1936, when F.D.R. was reelected by 60% of the voters, after using the Constitution of the United States as a bit of toilet paper), - most people are statists.
Government does not just grow because power corrupts politicians - the people elect folk who share their basic beliefs.
And the basic beliefs of most people are statist. This is not just true in the United States, but in every other major nation.
Unless this changes (either in the United States or in some other nation) then liberty will continue to decline. Full socialism is not popular (at least in most nations), but liberty is not popular either.
And for liberty to prosper people must want liberty.
Instead the "liberty" or "freedom" most people want is the vote (to decide who the LEADER is) plus lots of benefits.
Published: September 4, 2005 2:29 PM
Sam Huff writes:
"The title is a play on the Sex Pistols song, but the words anarchy and chaos are still used interchangeably in the article. If anyone can find the link to the cover (I can't find it anymore) it simply reads "ANARCHY" in huge type. I'm new to this site and I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it seems that the term "anarcho-capitalism" needs to be thrown out as completely useless, especially in the PR sense."
I've been saying this for some time, and if Katrina doesn't put an end to libertarianism's doomed attempt to equate anarchy with freedom, nothing will -- not to mention that anarcho-capitalism sounds like "a narco-capitalism," which is hardly what libertarianism wants to be identified with (since far too many people already associate libertarianism with drug use). Plus, because any economic system beyond subsistence requires capital, and because capitalism is generally identified with the corporate socialism that we have today, it too should be thrown out.
What to replace it with? How about market governance or, if an "ism" must be used, simply marketism?
Don't like either one of those? OK, then how about a Mises-run contest to come up with a term? ANYTHING BUT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM!
Note to Bruce: Carp as you will about the "silliness" of this site (why bother visiting it, then, much less blogging on it?), until and unless you step back from the immediate, you will not be able to appreciate how all-pervasive the state is or understand how different human society would be without it. Like a fish that doesn't question the water in which it swims, you simply assume that the state must exist and that it's only in need of reforming in this or that way. Be assured, however, that the state -- especially the American welfare-warfare state -- is as beyond reform as cancer. It's existence is everywhere and always an evil, and until it is completely cut out of the body politic, humanity will be prevented from fulfilling its enormous potential.
And if nothing else, bear this in mind: While a free society would by definition have to allow states to be created within its borders (people can be both free and stupid, after all), no state allows free societies within its borders. Why? Because the state fears nothing more than the thought that it may not be needed. So it uses its might to suppress this right, proving by this fact alone why free society is superior to it.
Published: September 4, 2005 4:01 PM
Lest anyone erroneously believe that the federal government is doing nothing to combat the effects of Katrina, please note: D.C. is working 24 hours a day ... preventing mobile hospitals from operating.
Published: September 4, 2005 7:09 PM
Libertarians bemoaning the plight of the treatment of the poor in NO seems a little rich given that in a libertarian world the poor would have to fend for themselves, presumably poorly.
Secondly, if these levees were so widely known to be vulnerable, why did the wonder of entrepreneurship not foresee/cater for such an event?
Why did people choose to live here? I am aware that state intervention will confound things but it still seems pretty obvious no?
So how are these same individuals supposed to be able to cope any better in a libertarian world? Benevolence of capitalists? I'm not so sure, why would they bother and cater such an expensive project to the poor?
People make poor decisions and those same people would still be there in a libertarian utopia, with entrepreneurs happily ready to provide (or not) for their whims, no matter how bad the highly predictable consequences of their choices are.
Published: September 5, 2005 2:03 AM
Maikel wrote:
"But of course when the local and state governments got more power the became more inefficient. This resulted in that the levee systems weren’t prepared in 1960 when a massive flood came, killing near 2000 people and 70000 had to be evacuated. This caused the “Delta Works� to be build, don’t know if you ever heard about them, but there huge and very expensive all government funded.
Maikel you are right in almost everything you wrote. Except for the date. The date for the "Watersnood ramp" was 1953. All of the province of Zeeland and western Brabant was flooded.
More info here:
http://www.delta2003.nl/index.php?url=/delta2003/welcome/index&lng=en
Published: September 5, 2005 2:45 AM
Here's a better page about the 1953 flood:
http://www.thehollandring.com/1953-ramp.shtml
Published: September 5, 2005 2:50 AM
David White,
How about we call it "Laissez-faire?" I actually never cared for the Anarchy term all that much myself, since individuals clearly rule themselves (autarchy) and the principles of the free market "rule" just about everything.
People associate Anarchy with a lack of rules or morals as much as lack of central government; since there are other terms that describe a free market society, I think anarchists are shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on the term "Anarchy."
Published: September 5, 2005 3:59 AM
Cato, I stand corrected, I should have remembered that it was the fifties instead of the sixties.
Published: September 5, 2005 5:45 AM
Ryan,
Yes, "allow to do" is precisely what we're talking about,but I'm afraid it says too little when it comes to governing the whole of society. Too many people will see it (and no doubt already do see it) as social Darwinism in which dog-eat-dog competition pits all against all, and only the strong survive. Indeed, this is why so many people (falsely) think the state is necessary -- i.e., to see to it that the market doesn't get out of hand. It is the state, of course, that very quickly gets out of hand, its tolerance for the market being purely a function of how much money it can extract from it.
Jonathan,
Do you honestly believe that the state cares for the poor, that LBJ's Great Society was a success, and that without its "compassion" (funded at gunpoint with other people's money) there would be no charity in the world? Do you not see that state intervention is not only the cause of most of the poverty in the world but the chief impediment to overcoming it? Or are you, like Bruce and countless others, too steeped in the ideology of the state to see beyond it?
Apparently, it's the latter, as it doesn't occur that entrepreneurship cannot be applied to "public" property for the simple reason that the pubic doesn't in fact own it. As Rothbard writes in Man, Economy, and State: “[G]overnment ownership is often referred to as ‘public’ ownership… The implication is that when government owns anything, every member of the public owns equal shares of that property. But…the important feature of ownership is not legal formality but actual rule, and under government ownership it is the government officialdom that controls and directs, and therefore ‘owns,’ the property. Any member of the ‘public’ who thinks he owns the property may test this theory by trying to appropriate for his own individual use his aliquot part of the government property.�
And there you have essentially what Lew has written so eloquently about in "The State and the Flood": there can be no real accounting of, no real responsibility for, property when it isn't privately owned.
Published: September 5, 2005 8:36 AM
Jonathan,
The State cares so much for the poor that it has made them not poor and evacuated them in the face of Katrina. The State has, in fact, done everything it can to increase the numbers of the poor, make less possible for them and their children to rise up out of poverty, and, amazingly, fail to save them in the face of disaster. And now the State will ask for more funds so that its next failure will be even more spectacular. No thanks.
Published: September 5, 2005 9:39 AM
Biggest failure since 9/11? From where I sit (a very long way away, fortunately), 9/11 was more or less negligible compared to this, both in terms of the scale of the disaster and of the culpability of the various government bodies before and during the crisis.
Published: September 5, 2005 10:10 AM
Yancey, I agree with you.
Because I am taking shots at a libertarian post does not mean I support the government (I don't). I think that libertarians in this case go too far in blaming the government to the extent they do. People are quite capable of making poor choices all by themselves and it is quite possible that in a libertarian world people would have chosen to live below sea level and underestimate the black swan / fat tail event that just hit NO.
Published: September 5, 2005 10:25 AM
You make some great points Mr. Rockwell, but for what purpose. I used to care like you do, and think that if we could just get rid of this oppressive, authoritarian government, then the masses would be happy to have their long lost freedom back, but that is simply not true.
I'm reminded of a story about the famous playwright George Bernard Shaw. He was standing in the back of a theater at the opening of one of his plays. When the play was over the audience erupted with applause and a standing ovation. A gentleman standing next to him said, "That's the worst play I've ever seen." Shaw looked at him and said, "I agree with you, but what are we to do against all of this."
You see, I've come to realize that the vast majority of people prefer the safety and security of a cage, as opposed to the risk and individual responsibilty of liberty. Those people in the superdome were not upset that the police were forcing them to stay, they were upset that they were not being taken care of. They had plenty of opportunity to leave and take care of themselves and their families before the hurricane hit. Many people, just as poor as they are, did just that.
I wish I could feel more optimistic, but I'm afraid reality speaks for itself. Liberty and freedom are simply some long, lost ideals. Oh, sure we pretend we still have them, but they're really just hanging on by a thread. You might say they only exist in the minds of a couple of astute men in the back of a crowded, yet empty, theater.
Published: September 5, 2005 12:28 PM
Jonathan,
As Mises rightly said, "All state activity is human action, an evil inflicted by men on men." If this activity cannot be totally eradicated, then it must at the very least be minmized to the fullest extent possible. Sure, humans in a free society will make stupid decisions, but the answer is not to rob them of their decision-making power; it is, as Jefferson said, "to inform their discretion." It is to educate them about the nature of freedom, based on the recognition that it is, in Proudhon's wise words, "the Mother, not the daughter, of order."
Published: September 5, 2005 12:30 PM
Opstock, I agree with you that people aren’t that independent as they use to be, since a lot of people are now more dependant on the state than ever, via welfare programs or what have you. Of course state propaganda also played a large role in getting people to believe that the state will provide security and help in time of need, hence further making the people more dependent on the state and unable to calculate risks for there own. It reminds me of the words of Patrick Henry “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts�.
But does this really mean that we should bow down in submission to the state’s coercion, while we see our rights disappear every year The events in New Orleans, and others show the true nature of government to the people, who now realize that there trust has been misplaced. The Mises Institute has took up the job of showing people that the events are not related to this administration alone, but that there inherent in government and convincing the people that the free market will provide all with better living standards. Do people really wish to continue living in a cage(that’s constantly getting smaller) freely rather than in the free market with all its “uncertainties�? I don’t know but history shows us numerous cases where totalitarian governments have been overthrown by the people, that simply didn’t put up with the coercion anymore.
The governments that replaced the old ones were in most cases not better, some even worse, but I hope we learned from these events and will be able to prevent them in the future.
Published: September 5, 2005 1:41 PM
Opstock,
Even before Iraq and Katrina, the American welfare-warfare state was doomed to collapse under its own weight. That collapse will come all the sooner as a result of these state-caused disasters, and when it does, the American people will need to be prepared.
While the libertarian leadership has so far declined to speak with one voice in this regard, I believe it's only a matter of time before the Mises Institute, the Independent Institute, the Future of Freedom Foundation, etc., unite in an all-out attack, not only on the most criminal presidency since Lincoln's but on a welfare-warfare state that, to quote one of its foremost representatives, is in its "last throes," the latest in that long line of empires to fall victim to overindulgence at home and overextension abroad.
What will replace it? Following a last gasp at perpetuating itself through martial law, one or another state (Louisiana?) will secede from the Union, and the American state will quickly follow its Soviet predecessor into the dustbin of history.
Yes, the American people will scoff at the notion at first, but as the government resorts to increasingly open acts of aggression against its own people -- all the more so following the next 9/11 -- it will be seen that the longer they remain associated with Washington, the more precarious their existence will be. They will see, that is, what true libertarians have known all along: that their real enemy is their own government; that "Parting Company" with it (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20020807.shtml) is their only option; and that if they are their progeny are going to survive, much less prosper, they are going to have to look to themselves. Not as caged animals but as free humans.
In the words of our Criminal in Chief, "Bring it on."
Published: September 5, 2005 3:22 PM
I think it is actually remarkable that libertarians are actually asking for a more competent effective federal government, more National Guard at home so they can have fun with us instead of Iraqis, more federal $$$ to pump into flood control projects that won't work anyway and just play with the environment...please think before you get what you wish for!
Published: September 5, 2005 10:59 PM
Lew Rockwell very astutely notes that "What was missing that made the looting rampage possible was the bourgeoisie, that had either left by choice or had been kicked out. It is they who keep the peace. And had any stayed around to protect their property, we don't even have to speculate what the police would have done: Arrest them!"
The "market anarchists" are right. It is not government that makes possible social order. It is spontaneous social order in the civil sector that makes possible government, including the so-called blessings of "democracy."
The sooner ordinary people the world over realize that government is the bane of civilization, not its source, the sooner they can liberate themselves from their self-forged political chains.
Bevin Chu
Published: September 5, 2005 11:44 PM
Like Opstock, I am pessimistic. The lesson to be learned from Katrina is the sheer incompetency of government, but listening to the media, listening to the victims, and listening to almost all other Americans, the lesson being learned is that we needed more government, not less. To get the leviathan off of our backs will require the total collapse of the present system, however, that might not lead where we wish to go.
Published: September 6, 2005 8:54 AM
Yancey, I agree. I can't even count the number of people I heard say that this event has changed there view on the government. Sadly this doesn't mean that they turned libertarian, but that they a) want more and control to this government/administration or b) that they want someone else is charge and give him more money and power. It's continues to be a long struggle.
Published: September 6, 2005 9:19 AM
aint that the truth. Katrina is a disaster for libertarianism. We're going to be see even bigger, stronger, more effective federal govt (not that it is really possible to change the logistics of transporting all those supplies all that much. see http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/09/logistics-of-disaster-relief.html and http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/09/unforgiving-mathematics-of-evacuations.html). And the dolts calling for a draft are serious this time. The National Guard will be a huge army prepared to fight Americans on native soil.
Published: September 6, 2005 10:23 AM
Arielb, I agree with you that we're going to get a bigger and stronger federal government from all of this, but I disagree about the effective part. In the long run all of this can only be good for freedom since government can never be effective. No amount of spending increases will change this either. More money will be spent, more freedoms will be trampled, and yet again the government will fail the people, it's simply a matter of time.
Published: September 6, 2005 10:58 AM
Yancey,
Collapse is inevitable, as our welfare-warfare state simply isn't sustainable. To read Addison Wiggin's "The Demise of the Dollar" is to know why -- all the more so in light of the present disaster -- which is why the libertarian leadership should waste no time in addressing the situation.
The American people must be told the truth: namely, that their government is broke and that it can neither tax nor inflate its way out of the hole it has dug for itself. And the sooner the people are told, the sooner we can dismantle Leviathan and return power to the states, stopping there long enough to catch our breath before we embark on the journey to a truly free society.
Published: September 6, 2005 11:08 AM
oh you'd be surprised how effective the govt can be in extracting compliance with a lot of guns to someone's head.
Published: September 6, 2005 1:29 PM
Even a totalitarian regime couldn't stand up to an unarmed man blocking a tank, not with the whole world watching. Look at what a lone U.S. woman has been able to accommplish, for heaven's sake. And as the U.S. government's vast military might ultimately depends on the moral authority to use it, it would be helpless against a peaceful secession movement. Which is to say that with the whole world watching, the U.S. government couldn't get away with murdering its own citizens the way it did 140 years ago, especially when it couldn't hide behind the slavery issue like it did then.
No, it will be but a few short years, surely no more than a decade, before the great wizard is exposed for the fraud that he is. Indeed, his frantic lever pulling and botton pushing will pull back the curtain, leaving him standing there, broken and bewildered, before the world. And while we won't be able to simply click our heels and go home, neither will we face what his Soviet predecessor did. For unlike their Soviet counterparts, the American states are fully capable of governing themselves, the only real question being whether Washington, in seeing the handwriting on the wall, agrees to participate in an orderly devolution of power or drags things out to the bitter end.
If it's to be the former, then people of influence must stand up now to lead the charge. And who else can that possibly be but the libertarian leadership?
Published: September 6, 2005 2:22 PM
"Even a totalitarian regime couldn't stand up to an unarmed man blocking a tank, not with the whole world watching."
Ahem... Peking, spring 1989?
Published: September 6, 2005 2:53 PM
Yes, but look at the damage it did to the Chinese government's image around the world. If the U.S. government acknowledges Taiwan's right to independence, pledging to use military force in support of it, could it possibly expect to get away with using that same for against its own people for exercising that same right? Imagine the scene, as tanks roll into the capital of Vermont, say, and take out the throng of citizens rejoicing after having just voted to secede.
No way. Absolutely no way.
Published: September 6, 2005 3:27 PM
once that peaceful secession movement is portrayed as a bunch of loony kooks, the military can do whatever it wants.
Everyone was killed in Waco, remember?
Published: September 6, 2005 3:35 PM
Not that they deserved to be murdered by their government, but Waco WAS a bunch of loony kooks. Do you honestly believe that a movement headed by Rockwell, Hoppe, Hornberger, and Theroux, et al. would be seen as such?
I doubt it.
Published: September 6, 2005 3:53 PM
No but I can imagine a bunch of young people joining them advocating an end to the drug war and the message will be "see? they are just a bunch of doped up drug addicts and pushers!"
Published: September 6, 2005 4:20 PM
I'm talking about a secession movement not a libertarian movement. Sure they go together, but my main point is that the collapse of the American welfare-warfare state being inevitable, it is best prepared for by getting the word out now, so that the American people can begin to confront the reality that awaits them -- one that will be all the worse the longer they fail to confront it.
Published: September 6, 2005 4:36 PM
I agree that the end is inevitable. I just expect the government to lash out like a wounded tiger when it does. be strong.
Published: September 6, 2005 10:42 PM
On the other hand, there's Thoreau's depiction of it:
“I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman…that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.�
The state, in other words, is what the people perceive it to be, not what it perceives itself to be. And when the people decide that they have no use for it, it will go out not with a roar but with a wimper.
Published: September 7, 2005 7:48 AM
David White,
My pessimism rests on the observations of the populace. When, and if the system collapses, they will kowtow to any demogogue who promises to feed them and keep them warm. They are completely unprepared to care for themselves. I predict that it would devolve into an abyss of slavery and depravity.
Published: September 7, 2005 7:54 AM
Yancey,
You may well be right, but while I fully expect martial law to be established at some point, I don't believe it will last, as the states will bail out and the central government will be helpless to stop them with all the world watching. This doesn't mean that some of the states won't be taken over by demogogues; it just means that the more decentralized demoguguery is, the less damage it will do, until a new society rises from the ashes of welfarism. For more, see my reponse to Thomas Woods' blog from earlier this morning.
Published: September 7, 2005 11:48 AM
Lew, you must be one of the most viciously idiotic, maniacally nasty people to have ever graced the face of the planet. Thank goodness most people look at you like the crackpot you evidently are. Crawl back into whatever dark hole you came from and sharpen your fangs for the next calamity on which you can feast.
Published: September 7, 2005 5:15 PM
Thank you, John, for your intelligent and civil comment. Your brilliant defense of the state leaves us all speechless.
Published: September 7, 2005 6:59 PM
Private enterprise would never have developed the upper or lower Mississippi River. Sorry to disagree with that point. Neither agriculture and industry would have produced the enormous impact on world GDP without the channelization of the river.
There were mistakes made in the construction of the river system that will continue to be an issue on the Mississippi. The reality is that New Orleans is the hub of the economy and no private investor would take that large of a risk. What planet have you been on? Privatization has had a terrific record when it comes to bilking the citizenry-can you say Haliburton? The federal government pays for all of these large projects, and many times private firms, who are incredibly and historically greedy, take advantage. Your thesis needs a little work.
I do agree the response was pitiful, and should have been organized better, starting with the local government, the state, and only then, the federal branch. You need to review the overall issue and deal with each part separately to make a more convincing argument.
Published: September 8, 2005 8:59 PM
Mark D.,
When the State gives out a contract to a private company, that operation isn't "private enterprise". It's a State-subsidy, mercantalism, and the like. A company that completely depends on the State for its existence isn't truly private, but a de-facto arm of the State. To say that what goes on at Haliburton is "privatization" is to simply not true.
Regarding your assertion that private enterprise never owuldn't developed the upper or lower Mississippi River -- that's just that, an assertion. If something is profitable to do, an efficient allocation of resources, there are incentives to do it on the free market. If something like such isn't done on the free market, that's telling you that such isn't the most efficient allocation of resources.
Talk about all of the things that you assert private enterprise "wouldn't do", such as say the space-shuttle to the moon, completely ignores the hidden dispersed costs of these things; that is, it completely ignores what is unseen, and treats this as if it doesn't exist.
That aside, I think it safe to say that any decent person would agree that the things that wouldn't have happened under private enterprise -- like the mass-exterimation of hundreds of millions of people over the past century -- are such horrible things that they outweigh all of the alleged good things by a thousand-fold. I think we could also say that even any utilitarian -- if he is being objective about what is caused by the State -- would have to agree that the decivilization caused by the State's barbary far outweighs the alleged "good things" that wouldn't have occured without States.
Published: September 8, 2005 9:21 PM
The assertion that private enterprise would have never engineered the Mississippi for commerce and navigation rests, I think, on the assumption that the river could not (should not?) be owned. With this assumption, one finds it difficult to imagine private enterprise building and maintaining the necessary constructs for river navigation. A similar assumption seems to rule the debate of whether the interstate highway system would have been built without the government. People simply cannot get their mind around the idea of private enterprise owning such a system, and thus they cannot understand why or how private enterprise could envision and build it.
Published: September 8, 2005 10:52 PM
I don't know what all of you are dithering and bickering about. The most obvious thing would be for the individual states (or better yet, the federal gov't.) to put an end to all this nonsense by simply passing laws against Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Talk about failure to act!
Published: September 9, 2005 8:54 AM
Good point, Gene, but seriously, folks...
Yancey Ward writes: "A similar assumption seems to rule the debate of whether the interstate highway system would have been built without the government."
To read Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln," in which he debunks the notion that the nation's railroad system needed to be built by the government, is to know that the answer is a resounding No:
"[B]y June 1862 both houses of Congress had passed the Pacific Railway Act authorizing the expenditure of millions of dollars to build a subsidized and government-regulated transcontinental railroad in the form of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroad Corporation. Myriad reasons, some of them quite specious, were offered for why such huge sums of money had to be diverted from the war effort [war being the health of the state, of course] to begin building a railroad in California. It was supposedly necessary for military purposes [just like the interstate highway system supposedly was], just in case California seceded [hmmm]. ... Most historians argue that the transcontinental railroads would never have been built if the only source of financing came from the private capital markets, but that view is wrong. All of England's railroad lines were privately financed, and American railroad entrepreneur James J. Hill did in fact build a transcontinental railroad, the Great Northern, without government subsidies. Hill's line was built fifteen years later than the government-subsidized ones, but it would likely have been built even sooner had his competitors not received millions of dollars in subsidies. The Great Northern was a famously efficient and profitable operation; by contrast, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific were so inefficient that they were bankrupt as soon as they were completed in 1869."
Would this have held for the Mississippi Delta? Perhaps. For in seeing that a third of the nation's water drains into it, a private company (or consortium of companies) could well see the enormous profit potential of building something along the lines of what exists today and purchase the land (and water)accordingly, charging all businesses and residences their share of the maintenance and use costs. If so, then the insurer(s) would likely not be content with Cat 3 protection, when the odds were that a "Kat 4" or worse would eventually strike it, and see to it that the levees were beefed up to meet the necessary requirements.
As it is, however, with "pubic" ownership of the levees -- i.e., with no one in a TRUE ownership capacity -- local, state, and federal authorities were all essentially free-riding on each other, leaving them to point fingers accordingly when the inevitable happened. Yet even though all are to blame, only the present administration of each stands to suffer, as none of these entities, quite unlike private companies, can be put out of business. Indeed, rather than face the harsh realities of the market -- a la Enron, WorldComm, or HealthSouth -- their failures are already being rewarded with more taxpayer dollars to fix a problem that, as with public education, is reduced to "insufficient funding."
Thus does government perpetuate itself, i.e., not as a function of its successes but of its failures. And since it cannot do so exclusively through taxation (since this would quickly break taxpayers' backs), the welfare state resorts to the fraud of central banking, fiat currencies, and printing money "out of thin air." But since the laws of economics can only be postponed for so long, reality will eventually exact its revenge, the only question being whether and when society finally sees the state for what it is -- a scam -- and rids itself of it. With no other model to turn to, will the failure of the democratic state signal the true "end of history?" That is, will what Francis Fukuyama famously dubbed "the final form of human government" instead be the final form of that which has outlived whatever usefulness it was purported to have?
Let us hope so, and keep our noses to the grindstone accordingly.
Published: September 9, 2005 9:20 AM
There is an article in the WASHINGTON POST here, that just as well could be retitled "Calculational Chaos on the Mississippi."
Published: September 10, 2005 7:37 PM
FEMA's mission is ...vote buying. James Bovard talks about "FEMA's Snow Job" here, and Jason Leopold talks about Bush's use of FEMA to rescue his campaign from electoral disaster here. No wonder FEMA's disaster relief performance is poor. Maybe they should rename it the Federal Electoral Manipulation Agency so no one gets confused!
Published: September 11, 2005 5:51 AM