What do Libertarians think should happen when disasters strike?

Great Debates
1

So Hurricane Sandy came along and messed up some pretty populous areas of the country, some of which are still trying to come to terms with things. When this happened, FEMA on the federal level and a ton of assistance from the states and local municipalities came to the aid of the many people affected.

What do Libertarians think about this?

I saw a few cartoons and Facebook images shared about how everyone is a Libertarian until they’re on their rooftops and the helicopter is there to rescue you. It’s funny because it’s kinda true: Wouldn’t a true Libertarian be against the government assisting even in times of natural disasters? Wouldn’t a bootstrappy individualist who hates and mistrusts the government not want to be saved by the government?

Assuming that is the case, how would one privatize emergency rescue and assistance? Emergency services for profit?

Or do they suggest that victims are to rely on charities (as I often hear about other forms of welfare)? If so, how would they do so when local charities and shelters are often themselves swept away by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or earthquakes and the ones who can assist are almost always lacking in manpower, supplies and resources - and that is WITH governmental assistance in the mix?

Or in spite of what Mitt Romney suggested when he was securing the nomination or what Ron Paul said when he was… Ron Paul… Do most (or a large minority at least) of Libertarians feel that emergency services is one of the few things that the government should be doing?

To those who don’t agree on even that… What do they suggest?

2

Insurance.

3

Insurance or die. Well, hope your insurance company cooperates with you and pays your claim in good faith or die, actually.

4

Or that disasters don’t happen to you in the first place unless you are weak and stupid.

5

So, Will, when did State Farm acquire a National Guard contingent?

6

So, when did the US become a libertarian society?

Obviously, there is little reason today for an insurance company to duplicate the services that government provides (although some insurance companies do maintain their own firefighting services to protect their policyholders’ homes from wildfires).

That doesn’t mean that insurance companies wouldn’t offer those services if the market demanded it.

7

Even with government oversight, insurance policies are known to be legalese minefields, and the insurance companies despite making massive profits are quicker to write a check to sponsor the name of a sporting arena than they are many claims.

There is a homeowner’s insurance crisis in Florida right now. Here are all of the recent articles on the subject from the South Florida Sun Sentinel. This shows that in areas where insurance is needed most, companies are either leaving the area or raising rates to astoundingly high levels.

Insured homeowners often have to turn to state agencies to help settle claims.

Plus this answer doesn’t help the millions of people who rent since even renter’s insurance only covers property, not the home itself.

It also doesn’t examine a situation where these insurance companies have less or no regulations or oversight. If they do all of the nasty things now with many of their business practices regulated, can we really expect them to be better with regard to these issues without that oversight?

In Libertaria, it is very possible that someone will be denied insurance entirely in some areas. What of them? Either move or suffer if a disaster strikes?

So I think you will have to be a little more specific as to how Libertaria is better when a hurricane or tornado comes to town than a system where the government has funding to assist at various levels.

8

The idea of libertarianism is not that it produces a wonderful, happy outcome for everyone. If you decide to live in Florida, you’re going to get hit by hurricanes. And yes, in Libertaria you may have a very hard time finding cheap insurance if you live in an area that is likely to get hit by hurricanes. Not sure why this is surprising.

Yes, the current system in the US is better for people who live in disaster-prone areas, because the tax dollars of people who don’t live there subsidize their risk. Libertaria would remove that subsidy. Yes, this would be bad for people who live in disaster-prone areas. The claim is not that Libertaria will make life better for everyone. The claim is that Libertaria will allow everyone to live freely, making their own decisions and taking their own risks, and not be responsible for subsidizing the risks, poor decisions, lifestyle choices, etc. of others.

So, insurers are unwilling to inexpensively insure people who live in an area likely to get hit by hurricanes. Gee, I wonder why that is.

In Libertaria, you have to be careful who you deal with. Deal only with insurance companies that have good reputations. If you go with a cheap policy from a crap company, you might have to sue them. Your loss. If you have a good case, a lawyer will probably take the case on contingency.

Libertaria require a strong legal system that strictly enforces contracts. No way around that.

Obviously, in Libertaria or in the US, the owner of the home carries their own insurance to cover the home itself. Not sure what your point is.

The only thing you’ve cited as “nasty” is that insurance companies are unwilling to lose money by cheaply insuring people who are statistically likely to have their houses blown away by a hurricance. That’s hardly nasty.

And Libertaria does not preclude a strong legal system that strictly enforces contracts. In fact, it pretty much requires one.

Yeah, pretty much. Libertaria does not guarantee that you will be able to live wherever you want and be able to purchase cheap insurance. You want to enjoy the views of sunny south Florida? Your call.

It’s not “better”. Unquestionably, the current system is better, from the perspective of the people suffering, because they are provided with emergency services that they do not have to pay for.

Libertaria is more economically efficient, and more free. The claim is that libertaria is a better society overall, not that it produces “better” results for every person in every situation. There are plenty of people who benefit from subsidies of one form or another in the current US economic structure, who would be worse off in Libertaria. People who live in disaster-prone regions are one such group.

9

In another thread about libertarianism, I asked about catastrophic floods, using the recent Thailand calamity as an example. I’ll track down the thread if requested since the responses were amazing: one libertarian seemed to think Thailand’s rice farmers were at fault for not hedging their rainfall bets on the Chicago Board of Trade.

As I’ve written many times before, the majority of people would understand economics much better if they forget everything they think they know about it, and imagine how a small group on an isolated island would organize themselves.

The purpose of economic activity is to increase goods and improve services. Rescue and subsistence, for example, are services needed during many natural tragedies. At the answer “insurance” I can only laugh. (In the island example, when a storm approaches can anyone imagine someone speaking up with “I know! I’ll start an insurance company!”)

10

Just because you feel all libertarian-ish doesn’t mean you won’t help your fellow man.

I donate both money and time to various charities. This is voluntary and I get to choose which charities and how much.

I support, in money and time, government actions that have a similar outcome. The difference is I don’t get to say how much or which actions and it’s not voluntary.

11

Also note WRT insurance, the inefficiency of an agency having to provide assistance on a home-by-home basis rather than just “Let’s help as many people as we can in this geographic area”.

Plus the practicalities of emergency rescue for the many people who are just stranded wherever and don’t happen to have their insurance paperwork with them. You’d need to rescue everyone to have sufficient time to process them and work out if they’re entitled to rescue, or could afford to pay your off-policy rescue fee (and what if they can’t? To the pit of laser-wielding sharks)?

12

LOL libertarianism (it doesn’t deserve a more in depth response).

13

How are kids handled in Libertaria? I can almost see letting Bob and Suzie sleep on the beach and slowly starve as they struggle to pull themselves out of poverty–maybe making it and maybe not, serving as terrifying examples to others–but it seems impossible that a society would let their three kids starve with them, as the kids make no choices. Now, the kids could presumably sue the parents, for failing to provide for them, but that seems pretty pointless, as the parents have no resources. Do we, as a society, provide a place where parents can voluntarily release their kids if they can’t support them, and can only get them back when they’ve paid off whatever it cost to support them in the meantime? Do we forcibly take kids away from parents who can’t support them but refuse to admit it because they are hoping against hope things will turn around and they can keep their kids? Do we let a generation starve to death as a vivid learning experience about contraception?

14

It pays for companies to not act in good faith when the consequences are not as dire, loss of business is worth not paying out massive amounts in well deserved claims.

So in Libertalia while this is difference of opinion working it way through the courts starving cold homeless people will have the freedom to be patient enough to seek a settlement in their favor.

15

Wha?

16

Regarding Florida. The situation in Florida isn’t caused by the weather. It’s caused by incompetent government. The legislature makes unfair demands of the insurance companies there and that’s why they pull out of the state.

17

You are starting with the assumption that kids would starve without the government. Libertarians don’t agree with this premise, and they are right.

18

I just thought I’d relay something a Libertarian said to me once in explaining Libertarianism:

A Libertarian believes that if a man falls down, you should help him up.
A Libertarian believes that if that man falls down again, you should help him up again.
A Libertarian believes that if that man continues to fall down, you should continue to help him up.

But a Libertarian does not believe that you should build a structure around that man to ensure that he never falls down again.

I always liked that explanation, and can mostly support it. However, that doesn’t seem to quite match the idea of Libertarianism that I hear these days from people claiming to be Libertarians.

19

Hey, as long as we’re building a fantasy Libetaria, may as well fill it with fantasy Libertarians.

20

I would modify that to say that building such a structure is just fine and may be a good thing, but it should not be made legally mandatory and the public should not be taxed to build it.