While it appears that Bush has been biggering government in many venues, in FEMA he did indeed implement a downsizing and attempted a reshifting of responsibility off of a federal and into more local and subcontracted venues. Obviously the postmortem of the effectiveness of this approach is the subject of many other threads.
But is that approach inherently wrong or was it just poorly executed (at some level, which level the subject of other threads, thank you very much) in this particular case? Specifically, from the liberterian POV, what should be the role of government in preparation for and management of natural disasters like Katrina in general? What level of government should be responsible for what? How about in managing the aftermath, especially if the show was poorly handled by multiple levels?
Speaking as a registered libertarian (who has since changed views but haven’t gotten around to changing parties) here’s what I think the libertarian view is.
If Bush downsized FEMA the libertarian way he would have at least had the common courtesy to inform the rest of the american public so that more private charity money would come in to fill the gap. If you won’t deliver, fine, but at least don’t lie about being able to deliver so people won’t depend on you.
I agree with Blalron. I am libertarian world, private entities would know that they have responsibilty for the levee system. One other thing to add is that Katrina, added support for one major libertarian idea. The government is not capable of protecting people in the ways that it claims. Libertarians have always advocated the idea that private charities and organizations are a more efficient and effective way to distribute resources in the event of a disaster or hardship. That proved true with Katrina. The Red Cross, Salvation Army, and hundreds of other organizations were on the scene well before the government acted much at all. Even still, private organizations are bearing the brunt of disaster relief in human terms.
I would agree with much of what has been said. But a true Libertarian believes that protecting it’s citizens is on the top of the list of accepted roles of government. Although foreseeable natural disasters would be the primary responsibility of the inhabitants of the area, the secondary level of assistance (federal) would probably still be the same group responsible for responding after an attack from another nation (or group). To the degree that the organization performed poorly (and I still think the degree to which they failed is uncertain), the people can hold them accountable. That goes for the Mayor of NO and the Governeor of LA, as well.
The levee system in NOLA would have been privatized, and funded by the landowners directly affected-- much like condominium owners fund projects affecting the entire building. Or, it could have been government run, but funded by an assessment on landowners in the floodplain. In any event, New Yorker, (for example, wouldn’t foot the bill (except indirectly if they bought stuff from NOLA busniesses).
FEMA probably wouldn’t exist, since its main function is the rebuilding process after the disaster (which would be privatized). But, there would of course be life saving agencies run by the government and supplimented by private interests (as is the case now). Remember, Libertarianism doesn’t mean “no government”, so there’d still be police, Nat’l Guard, and military organizations to call upon.
Citizens would be used to the idea that the gov’t doesn’t bail them out insurance-wise if they make poor decisions about where to live, and so people would probably have more insurance and it would probably be more comprehensive.
Just to be clear, there’s nothing inherent in Libertarianism that requires a federal approach to government. Libertarians generally prefer gov’t to be smaller the more distant it is from the people, so it lends itself to federalism, but doesn’t require it.
As someone who leans libertarian (but I’m not a Libertarian with a big “L”), I do tend to take a much stronger libertarian approach to federal issues than I do to state or local issues. But that’s just me.
Since the Louisiana state officials made such a terrible hash of using the federal funds given them by the Bush Administration Link, a very good case can be made that the levee’s management would have been better handled privately.
A big chunk of the Libertarian answer to this problem lies with insurance companies. Federal flood insurance has been subsidizing poor choices for a long time. In a libertarian world, people would not be able to get federal flood insurance, so they would be forced to buy from private companies. This means houses built on eroding shorelines or on flood plains would probably be uninsurable, and therefore would not get built in the first place.
Also, a city might contract out the levee work to some other company, and demand that that company have liability insurance to cover possible levee breaks due to faulty engineering. This would put all the design choices right on the table for everyone to see. Do we design for Cat-3 only? If so, we need to write that explicitly into the contract. Now the city has to face up to the fact that they will be totally on the hook if a cat-4 or cat-5 hurricane destroys the levee system. So maybe the city has to also buy insurance in the case of a larger storm. So an underwiter will come in and do an estimate of potential damage, figure out how frequently a cat-4 or greater storm might hit, and set the premiums accordingly.
But note how the cost-benefit decision can be made much more intelligently now. You can weigh the added cost of construction against the cost of added insurance. The construction company is kept honest by the auditors from the insurance company (think Underwiter’s Labs and the various insurance-related auto safety organizations). Now an intelligent decision can be made: How much money do we spend to eliminate risk? Where is the right dividing line drawn?
In the current politicized system, think of how all the incentives are distorted. If a lawmaker has to choose between building a levee or spending money on a park or a tax cut, all he has to ask himself is, 'What are the odds that a devastating hurricane will hit while I’m in office?" The incentive system is totally screwed up. And with the complicated system of responsibilities between the feds, the states, various political parties and districts, the right choices become obfuscated and decisions put off indefinitely. And when they are made, they’re often made irrationally.
Suppose that the levees were poorly designed/built (as they are now) due to negligence or fraud. People who lost property could sue the company that built the levees for damages. Good luck trying to sue the federal government.
Ok, but terrorism would probably be uninsurable, to the extent that (re)insurance companies can’t handle a disaster of that magnitude. I’m guessing that floods were once uninsurable but today no longer are, due to greater financial market sophistication.
I jumped to your more interesting point.
I’ll keep it general:
There’s nothing especially Libertarian about a governmental agency outsourcing its services to a private organization. Actually, it seems non-Libertarian to me: in Lib-world, the magical marketplace spontaneously makes governmental involvement unnecessary.
Rational public policy involves a tough-minded look at the incentive structure. Where insurance is involved, issues of Moral hazard and adverse selection typically come into play. Yes, actually I am just throwing terms around: I haven’t thought through the implications of these factors. (Limited liability is another concern.) My point, though, is that serious analyses of incentive structures don’t automatically lead to market fundamentalist[sup]1[/sup] prescriptions. Indeed, in my experience, that they rarely do.
Observation: subcontracting involves the enforcement of a contract between the state and the engineering firm. Such a contract would in practice be rather detailed, which tends to diminish transparency. Furthermore, enforcing the contract may involve extensive litigation: knee-jerk Libertarianism tends rely heavily on the judiciary.
Interesting post though. I’m actually sympathetic to expanding the scope of private liability for public goods: I just see this more as a case of reform and incremental improvement than as a final general solution.
[sup]1[/sup]We can re-argue this admittedly controversial terminology here, if you wish, or (better yet) postpone that conversation.
Feds would be involved in protction from terrorism as that counts as national defense, a legit role of governement from the liberterian POV, but as for natural disasters there are a few variations on what would be compatable with liberterianism.
Option A: None. Individuals deal with building protection/preparation at a local level, preferably without governmental involvement at all, but if any the more local the better and the more the fees are paid by those directly effected only the better. Aftermath is left to private charities and giving. And insurance. No federal underwriting of it, let it be high enough that people can’t afford it because, presumably, they’ll then not live there.
Option B: There is role for the feds, pretty much as is envisaged now, a minimalist back up of resources for the local governments, and perhaps to help coordinate multiple state efforts, and perhaps to help individual states contract with each other for help (not already said but seems to be implied as logical).
However, this fact hasn’t deterred the inevitable Libertarian rejoinder; that these failures of government are a powerful argument for yet smaller government.
What happens when you run up against a situation such as in New Orleans when you have a city that is vital to the national economy, but when the costs to shore up levees are far beyond what the city or the state can afford? Despite the importance of New Orleans, both the city and the state it is located in are poor. How do Libertarians feel about federal funding in those instances?
Does one simply abandon such resources that will ultimately be compromised by their lack of funding to keep themselves safe? In fact, in the Libertarian view, should the state even be involved much at all? Where is the line draw in government relating to responsibility. I would guess the greatest burden by far would be borne by the city, which was I assume least able to provide the necessary funding (as opposed to the state of Louisiana).
Would there? I was under the impression that the libertarian state is only involved in activities where coercive force is involved - national defense, policing, enforcement of contracts. Firefighting, ambulances, paramedics and the like would all be privatized.
You have a good point and it was one I was already thinking about. The New Orleans situation is fairly unique. You have a city with strategic value that must be protected from water by levees. Not building or improving them well enough means that virtually the whole city is destroyed. In that case, a libertarian POV may be that the levee system is a matter of defense in the same way that we protect ourselves from other threats to cities.
That is a rather unique case however. I can’t think of a comparable situation anywhere else in the country. People that build on beaches would likely lose their homes for good in libertaria. There is nothing the government can build to protect private structures against tornados, earthquakes, blizzards, or even hurricanes in other areas.