• Robert Taylor
  • 19
  • Nov
  • 09

It’s very difficult to calculate exactly how incompetent and negligent our government is, but US District Judge Stanwood R. Duvall thinks he has the answer: $719,000.

That is the amount he awarded a small group of Hurricane Katrina flood victims last Wednesday who sued the Army Corps Of Engineers, citing its “insouciance, myopia, and shortsightedness,” and its “gross negligence.” Duvall argues that Katrina was not just an act of mother nature, but a man-made disaster at the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers.

He’s right. Before the hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast, there were numerous accurate predictions and warnings about the dangers that the Corps’ flimsy levels posed; they were ignored, of course.

And why should they have cared? They had no incentive to protect the coastline or build strong dams since it was not their property to begin with. There was no market based profit-loss mechanism for them to gauge the consequences of their actions, and as long as the levees appeared to be sturdy, all was well.

But then they broke, and we all know what happened next. It wasn’t the actual hurricane that caused all of the deaths and property damage, but the results of the crumbling government infrastructure that wreaked havoc on New Orleans.

When the government bridges broke, they had no way of getting cranes in and no way to make repairs. Then the guns and nightsticks came out, and 10,000 people were herded into a football stadium. That’s when some of the worst (but mostly unreported) atrocities began.

Everyone entering the Superdome was subject to a search, and if found with a firearm, it was quickly confiscated. Under the orders of the thoroughly corrupt New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police and National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshalls began kicking in doors at gunpoint to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from private citizens.

This Soviet-style gun-grabbing had predictable results: the strong preying on the weak, the increase of crime, and all of a sudden a manageable natural disaster turns into a bloodbath.

What the disasters of Hurricane Katrina represent is the inherent trouble with “public services.” When the state is in charge of property, it encourages a negligent attitudes of even the most obvious of risks. There is no real stake in the outcome of development and the government can not properly make proper economic decisions since its source of revenue is not the voluntary exchange of goods or services (the market), but the levying of taxes (theft).

But can the market really provide infrastructure and protect people against hurricanes, floods, fires, etc.? Absolutely. There is a growing industry dedicated to protecting property owned along coastlines that is addressing the threats of natural disasters infinitely times better than government can. It’s not perfect, of course, as no human function can be, but it is a far more effective (and far more moral) way of handling crises.

Justice Duvall has asked the federal government to compensate some of the victims of Katrina for good reason. We can only hope the next time disaster strikes in this country, the government will just get out of the way.

_

For more of Robert’s work, please visit his Libertarian Examiner blog.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

» You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

Disaster Area - Hala V. Furst, 18 November 2008
Exaggerating Sporks - Rob Spectre, 23 July 2008
  • The Army Corps of Engineers fortified New Orleans after the British tried to seize it during the War of 1812, but the city and territory itself was created by the efforts of private individuals going back at least to the early 18th century. the port of New Orleans was one of the busiest ports in the US, and was governed by the peaceful elements of commerce and trade.
    My attack on the gun-confiscation at New Orleans was indeed a jab at the logic of gun control but my overall attempt was to show the gross mismanagement inherent in any state function. Herding over 10,000 people, like cattles, into a stadium was probably not the greatest idea in my opinion. Before we had the mega-state that exists in America today, there are plenty of examples of natural disasters (Chicago Fire of 1873, the Johnstown Flood of 1889, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906) being handled far better by individuals and the great work of private charities and volunteers. This is because the growth of a state tends to create a sense of dependency, whether its education, defense, or floods.
  • Let's not forget the city of New Orleans would not even exist with the Army Corps of Engineers and many other instruments of state and federal government. The entire region was shaped by public, not private, resources.
  • Hala Furst
    Ok, even I will grant you that the confiscation of fire arms in private homes was a gross overreaching of police power. But, I do not see a logical through line between that argument and the mismanagement of other government services. Are you positing that an armed populace would have done a better job of addressing the needs of the citizens harmed by Katrina, or are you just getting in a 2nd Amendment jab while making collateral points?

    Moreover, can you really, really argue that weapons in the Superdome would have been a good idea? Not arguing through hindsight, and saying that perhaps some of the people who were raped or mugged while there would have been protected by private weapons, but by putting yourself in the moment. Thousands of angry, confused, scared, and recently-homeless individuals are being pent up for God knows how long. Do you really, even in your most libertarian of hearts, believe that thinking people would have made any decision other than to keep guns out of there?
blog comments powered by Disqus