# What do Libertarians think should happen when disasters strike? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758 "2012-11-12T05:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tomcar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tomcar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomcar)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/61 "2012-11-12T23:53:54Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Do we know that in practice? > > I’m not a big fan of Ayn Rand, but she makes a pretty good argument that monopolies don’t exist without government support. Can you cite a monopoly that government had to break up, that wouldn’t have existed without protective legislation in the first place? > > I can: Microsoft/Windows. It’s an interesting counter-example to Rand’s arguments. In this case, the market _wanted_ a monopoly of sorts, so that application developers could focus on a single platform. However, as the need for this bootstrap fades, so does the monopoly status of Windows. IMHO, this is market forces working correctly, and nearly an exception that proves the rule. Its a trick question, the US supports all big businesses in numerous ways. You dont get to be big without goverment help. So some become monopolies… Which points to the irony of libertarianism - all these rich old white guys who want to not pay taxes, etc only got rich because of the government support. The US goverment created a system where you guys could make money and thrive. Thank the goverment, pay your dues and learn to care about others. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/62 "2012-11-12T23:55:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Jeezusfuckingkeeeristonastick. Look, everyfucking_where in the USA is subject to disasters. So, all that FEMA works out to be is a very large pooled insurance. > > And trust me, if you get hit regularly by hurricanes and other disasters, just having some potential FEMA aid does not make up for it. Yeah. One of the reasons hardly anyone buys earthquake insurance here is that we expect low cost loans to help rebuild if necessary. We are basically self-insuring given this. If I had bought earthquake insurance when I moved in, I think I would have spent well, well over $100K on it with no benefit so far. Given that my property is unlikely to vanish into the depths, it would have been a bad investment. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/63 "2012-11-12T23:55:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Jeezusfuckingkeeeristonastick. Look, everyfucking_where in the USA is subject to disasters. So, all that FEMA works out to be is a very large pooled insurance. > > And trust me, if you get hit regularly by hurricanes and other disasters, just having some potential FEMA aid does not make up for it. I agree. FEMA should be a governmental program directed to restoring the level of order and functioning needed so that the private sector can take over. But, FEMA was providing nearly 2,000 trailers for people to live in (and ultimately just gave them away) [up to four years after Hurricane Katrina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMA_trailer#June_2009_activities). (This line: “At the beginning of June 2009, activists protested in Washington, D.C., to remind the government of the many Hurricane Katrina survivors still without re-built homes,” quite frankly calls to mind nothing so much as [this cartoon](http://awesomesquad.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/pbf085adlumberjack.jpg?w=655&h=257).) Those kind of activities aren’t emergency response, that’s just a generalized welfare program. “But they needed them!” I hear you say. No doubt. But if New Orleans suffers such extreme weather events that its citizens will need to rely on government provision of housing up to four years after the event, then definitely we cannot allow people to live there, right? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/64 "2012-11-13T00:36:54Z")
Tell all the people who own homes and businesses in and around NO that the risk is just too great and they should abandon their multibillion dollar investments. And move somewhere safer. At their own expense, natch. I can’t wait to see how well that flies. Freedom! ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/65 "2012-11-13T00:39:08Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Tell all the people who own homes and businesses in and around NO that the risk is just too great and they should abandon their multibillion dollar investments. And move somewhere safer. At their own expense, natch. I can’t wait to see how well that flies. Freedom! That’s not what I’m saying at all (and I suspect you know that). What is said is, “Live where you wish, but if there are risks associated with living there that you do not wish to bear on your own, you must either insure or live elsewhere. (Or bear the risk on your own, after all.)” “Life should be all skittles and beer” and “No expense is too great for the public to pay to allow me to do what I want” are not a governing philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/66 "2012-11-13T01:43:37Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > That’s not what I’m saying at all (and I suspect you know that). What is said is, “Live where you wish, but if there are risks associated with living there that you do not wish to bear on your own, you must either insure or live elsewhere. (Or bear the risk on your own, after all.)” > > “Life should be all skittles and beer” and “No expense is too great for the public to pay to allow me to do what I want” are not a governing philosophy. The people in the trailers didn’t have the resources to pick up and move. Those who did either rebuilt or did move. Here is a solution. We in the Bay Area will move to Oklahoma to get away from earthquakes. Those in Oklahoma will move to New Orleans to get away from tornadoes. And those in New Orleans will move to the Bay Area to get away from hurricanes. All better now, right? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/67 "2012-11-13T01:51:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The people in the trailers didn’t have the resources to pick up and move. After four years? Couldn’t even rustle up enough for a security deposit and a month’s rent? What the fuck were they doing over all that time? Well, I suffered through a hurricane. Lifetime of free housing for me! > [@](#): > > Here is a solution. We in the Bay Area will move to Oklahoma to get away from earthquakes. Those in Oklahoma will move to New Orleans to get away from tornadoes. And those in New Orleans will move to the Bay Area to get away from hurricanes. > All better now, right? As I’ve already pointed out, this is a red herring. Yes, you’ll be pleased to know, I understand that there is no region of the country immune from natural disasters. So the fuck what? Everybody’s gotta pay for food. Everybody’s gotta pay for clothing. We don’t say, “Well, since everybody has to buy food and clothing, let’s just have the government do it and distribute food and clothing to people.” So maybe everybody’s gotta pay for insurance. It will be more expensive in some places (where there is a greater likelihood of natural disaster) and less in others. And no, it is not the case that every square inch of the earth’s surface is just as dangerous as any other. In any event, you seem to think that this “Well, you can’t move away from the risk” is some great counter-argument. But I truly don’t know what you think it proves. I mean, what? “The world doesn’t work the way I want it to, so everybody’s gotta pay my insurance!” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/68 "2012-11-13T01:51:44Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > That’s not what I’m saying at all (and I suspect you know that). What is said is, “Live where you wish, but if there are risks associated with living there that you do not wish to bear on your own, you must either insure or live elsewhere. (Or bear the risk on your own, after all.)” > > “Life should be all skittles and beer” and “No expense is too great for the public to pay to allow me to do what I want” are not a governing philosophy. Neither is “Suffer, scum! Mwahahahaha!” And what you are resolutely igniting is that any place remotely livable is going to be prone to natural disasters. Some place geologically dead that never gets high winds or intense rains or fires is going to be a near-lifeless desert; the sort of place that has those cool balancing stones because nothing ever happens to knock them down. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/69 "2012-11-13T01:58:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Neither is “Suffer, scum! Mwahahahaha!” > > And what you are resolutely igniting is that any place remotely livable is going to be prone to natural disasters. Some place geologically dead that never gets high winds or intense rains or fires is going to be a near-lifeless desert; the sort of place that has those cool balancing stones because nothing ever happens to knock them down. OK, everybody has to buy insurance. I’m cool with that. It’s part of being a responsible homeowner. Every homeowner is going to need plumbing work done at some point in their lives too. So, guess what, homeowners need to save money and keep some in reserve for plumbing emergency. Or have insurance or access to credit. Oh, perhaps I’m just a heartless monster who doesn’t understand that saving money is hard and doesn’t understand the obvious truth that the government should provide everyone with free emergency plumbers. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/70 "2012-11-13T02:22:37Z")
Well, [this](http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/response-to-hurricane-gustav-demonstrates-america%E2%80%99s-strength-says-bob-barr) is from the Libertarian Party’s web page (interesting, as always, that non-Libertarians answer the most and don’t bother to actually check to see what the real position of Libertarians is): > [@](#): > > Response to Hurricane Gustav Demonstrates America’s Strength, Says Bob Barr > > “The thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with those suffering through Hurricane Gustav,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “This is time for Americans to set aside partisan differences and come together to help meet the needs of those in the disaster zone." > > “Although many people typically look to government for the answer at a time like this, the responsibility to prepare for disaster and to help those who lose their homes and jobs first lies with us, the American people," explains Barr. “Indeed, this was the lesson of Hurricane Katrina. The government—city, state, and federal—performed badly while Americans across the nation responded by donating money and supplies, and by rushing to New Orleans to help. Volunteers came afterwards to help clean up the resulting mess. As Hurricane Gustav approached, companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot planned for the storm, preparing to act as centers for delivering supplies and equipment to entire communities in need.” > > “Of course, we should insist that government perform competently, and public safety is perhaps the government’s most basic responsibility,” notes Barr. “However, it must do so within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. This means, for example, that the government - whether local, state or federal - cannot deny law-abiding citizens the right to possess firearms with which to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses, as Mayor Nagin and others attempted to do in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” > > “At least some lessons have been learned from Hurricane Katrina,” notes Barr. “Jason Johnson, head of emergency management at Wal-Mart, says that ‘the biggest change in the last three years is government opening its doors to the private sector in general, the recognition that we are part of the collective solution.’ This is a good start, but it is a lesson that should be learned throughout government, and not just at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” > > “With Hurricane Gustav upon us, Americans should do what they have done so very well since the founding of this wonderful country: Work together to help those in need around them," says Barr. “The greatness of this nation has always been reflected by the willingness and ability of the American people to rise and meet serious challenges like at the present.” Granted, this is an old article, but it seems clear to me that the Libertarian Party’s position is far from the “Suffer, scum! Mwahahahaha!” strawman being portrayed. Instead of these ridiculous strawmen, does anyone have any actual cites showing the Libertarians are opposed to the federal government providing relief to disaster areas? Because it’s always been my understanding that both big and small ‘l’ Libertarians see this as one of the legitimate functions of the government TOO provide. But, fight my ignorance here and show me the money…instead of the straw. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/71 "2012-11-13T02:23:38Z")
[b]Kimmy\*\*, if you’re saying that the first settlers of the New World should have been more analytical in choosing the locations of their homesteads, I’ll offer that this is mooted by the events of several hundred intervening years. If you want to broaden this to the rest of the planet, then a few thousand years of more-or-less recorded history demonstrates that forcing this into a “personal choice of location” scenario is ridiculous. If you mean that government supervised, reasonably regulated shared risk pools can be organized and sold as commercial products, and these will go a long way to mitigate personal losses in disasters, I’ll totally agree. If though you claim that such can function without government oversight, regulated only by contract law, I vehemently demure. Finally, if you suggest that insurance alone, libertarian version or otherwise, can provide all of the relief needed after a genuine disaster, then your claims are pure foolishness. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/72 "2012-11-13T02:36:46Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Do we declare the entire seaboard and all adjacent states to be a “live there at your own risk” territory in Libertopia? I was going to ask that. Exactly where in Libertopia should everyone move in order to wisely avoid ever getting hit by a disaster? > [@](#): > > This has nothing whatever to do with the humanitarian aid, law and order, relief for uninsured (commonly uninsurable due to insurers refusals) losses, and rebuilding of infrastructure beyond the means of local governments that is provided by FEMA. I think you nailed where this whole conversation has gone off the rails. Federal disaster management isn’t supposed to be a substitute nor competitor for private insurance. It’s for providing a coordinated relief effort & temporary infrastructure for entire regions that have temporarily lost the comforts of civilization. I suppose you could say that your city or county or even region could purchase “disaster relief insurance” on behalf of the entire population, but if you say that, then you’ve accepted that government has a role here and you’re only dickering over the financing mechanism. And that’s fine, but that’s not the discussion that I think I’ve seen up to this point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/73 "2012-11-13T04:53:38Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > After four years? Couldn’t even rustle up enough for a security deposit and a month’s rent? What the fuck were they doing over all that time? > > Well, I suffered through a hurricane. Lifetime of free housing for me! > > As I’ve already pointed out, this is a red herring. Yes, you’ll be pleased to know, I understand that there is no region of the country immune from natural disasters. So the fuck what? > > Everybody’s gotta pay for food. Everybody’s gotta pay for clothing. We don’t say, “Well, since everybody has to buy food and clothing, let’s just have the government do it and distribute food and clothing to people.” > > So maybe everybody’s gotta pay for insurance. It will be more expensive in some places (where there is a greater likelihood of natural disaster) and less in others. And no, it is not the case that every square inch of the earth’s surface is just as dangerous as any other. > > In any event, you seem to think that this “Well, you can’t move away from the risk” is some great counter-argument. But I truly don’t know what you think it proves. I mean, what? “The world doesn’t work the way I want it to, so everybody’s gotta pay my insurance!” “Oh boy Oh boy oh boy! I get to lose everything I own, including my family home, my pets, and my living, and instead I get to live in a cheap trailer and eat government cheese!” Do you think those people wanted this? Everyone\* does\* pay for a little bit of horrible disaster insurance. It’s called “taxes”. I don’t to abandon New Orleans _or New York_ because someone who read that idiot Rand can whine about “freeloaders”. I _want_ to be able to pay a tiny bit more taxes- less than 1%- so that those who are unlucky can get back their lives and start contributing to society. I want there to be NO so that there’s more jazz and music and Mardi Gras and shipping (it’s a major port- the largest in the USA) . I think Tulare Univ is important. And so forth. Abandoning NO because they have a disaster every few decades is complete and utter foolishness. Would you have us leave NYC too? LA? SF? :rolleyes: You just don’t understand how insurance works- the larger the pool the safer and better _for everyone._ Pure economics. It’s so amazing that the disciples of Rand not only have no idea of human decency and kindness, but even less grasp of simple econ 101. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/74 "2012-11-13T05:03:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Oh boy Oh boy oh boy! I get to lose everything I own, including my family home, my pets, and my living, and instead I get to live in a cheap trailer and eat government cheese!” Do you think those people wanted this? In a word: yes. Yes, they preferred to have the government bear the cost of housing them, even if it was less than glamorous accommodations. What possibly is your alternative explanation for the fact they were there four years later (2005-2009, which covers the three years our economy was firing on all cylinders, mind you)? No, really, I want to know. Four years. And looking for more. Can’t have hated it that much. (While you’re lecturing me on Econ 101, why don’t you check out “revealed preferences.”) As to the rest of your post, I’ve already said in this thread that I am fine with the government stepping and restoring order and functioning, at which point, private enterprise should take over. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/75 "2012-11-13T07:31:26Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > After four years? Couldn’t even rustle up enough for a security deposit and a month’s rent? What the fuck were they doing over all that time? > > Well, I suffered through a hurricane. Lifetime of free housing for me! I’m sure those trailers were just so luxurious. These people lost nearly everything, and they didn’t have that much to start with. Parts of New Orleans were and are very poor. You think they didn’t want to return to their neighborhoods? I know, let’s forcibly resettle them. And make them walk to save money. We can call it Trail of Tears II, Electric Boogaloo. > [@](#): > > As I’ve already pointed out, this is a red herring. Yes, you’ll be pleased to know, I understand that there is no region of the country immune from natural disasters. So the fuck what? > > Everybody’s gotta pay for food. Everybody’s gotta pay for clothing. We don’t say, “Well, since everybody has to buy food and clothing, let’s just have the government do it and distribute food and clothing to people.” > > So maybe everybody’s gotta pay for insurance. It will be more expensive in some places (where there is a greater likelihood of natural disaster) and less in others. And no, it is not the case that every square inch of the earth’s surface is just as dangerous as any other. > > In any event, you seem to think that this “Well, you can’t move away from the risk” is some great counter-argument. But I truly don’t know what you think it proves. I mean, what? “The world doesn’t work the way I want it to, so everybody’s gotta pay my insurance!” Try to understand my point about contained risks versus very uncertain risks. Food and clothing are regular expenses, well contained. We don’t buy food insurance, but we do buy medical insurance to cover large unexpected personal expenses. However for the medical insurance company, the risk is quite well contained, and is no more an issue than our risk for buying food. Say statistically they can expect to pay $1,000 +/- $50 for each insured. They can charge $1100 and make a profit. (Ignoring administrative costs for the moment.) The problem with hurricane and flood insurance is not that some places are more expensive than others - the ones that are not at risk don’t contain customers. It is that the insured has a bigger chance of losing. For medical insurance, I can expect to lose $100 per year on average, but that is worth it. (The insurance company charges at the high end of expected value, I value it right at expected value.) Since hurricanes are uncertain, the insurance company can expect to pay $1000 +/- $500 a year, and that is averaged over several years, some of which will have few events and some will have many. So the delta in value to the customer is much greater, and fewer take it, and the insurance company has to keep more reserves to deal with the disasters that do hit. And while Florida might be dangerous, the Jersey Shore is not usually considered a high risk area. Nor is Far Rockaway. There can be a massive earthquake in the midWest still (the first earthquake I ever felt was in Urbana) - want to not provide federal aid in that case? BTW, federally subsidized flood and earthquake insurance is not exactly free. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/76 "2012-11-13T07:38:00Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > In a word: yes. Yes, they preferred to have the government bear the cost of housing them, even if it was less than glamorous accommodations. > > What possibly is your alternative explanation for the fact they were there four years later (2005-2009, which covers the three years our economy was firing on all cylinders, mind you)? > > No, really, I want to know. Four years. And looking for more. Can’t have hated it that much. (While you’re lecturing me on Econ 101, why don’t you check out “revealed preferences.”) You don’t know much about New Orleans, do you? And while some of the country was doing fine, those people (and the middle classes) were not. The increasing wealth of the 1% during that time just didn’t seem to trickle down on them. Ah, you probably think they spent all that time in the Superdome because they thought the Saints were about to play. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/77 "2012-11-13T08:10:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I know, let’s forcibly resettle them. And make them walk to save money. We can call it Trail of Tears II, Electric Boogaloo. I just want to point out this was most excellent and made me LOL ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/78 "2012-11-13T11:54:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Jeezusfuckingkeeeristonastick. Look, everyfucking_where in the USA is subject to disasters. So, all that FEMA works out to be is a very large pooled insurance. As to flood insurance, this simply isn’t true. The whole reason the National Flood Insurance Program exists is because the risk-pooled cost of flood insurance in the private market was too expensive to allow expanded construction into beachfront and flood-plain areas. Back when Florida and the Gulf Coast were hillbilly wastelands, no one outside of the area much cared about these costs, but when they became desirable retirement and vacation destinations, people began to complain that the frequency of hurricane weather made the cost of insuring against flood damage prohibitively high. The NFIP was set up to subsidize these costs. It offers flood insurance at premiums well below the actuarial cost. Taxpayers who do not have flood insurance (i.e., who are outside the risk pool) are on the hook to pay any cost of claims that exceed premiums paid. One can argue about whether or not this is a good policy idea, but it’s not just a bigger version of an ordinary insurance risk pool. Every area of the country is subject to natural disasters, but insurance costs for various disasters differ because those disasters happen with different frequencies and cause different amounts of damages. Tornadoes are common, but the geographic scope of their damage is much more limited than that of a hurricane. Earthquakes strong enough to cause devastation on the scale of a hurricane happen far more rarely than hurricanes. As to every other form of natural disaster, the risk-adjusted cost of insuring against those disasters is entirely built into the cost of living there. The earthquake insurance rider purchased by a person living near the Hayward fault covers the actuarial cost of insuring that home, and the only money that will be used to pay claims for damages under those policies is the money paid into the risk pool by other insureds over time. The same is true for tornadoes, wildfires, etc. Flood insurance is qualitatively different because it is subsidized from outside. On the one hand, this is great because it preserves New Orleans, a cultural gem built below sea level next to a giant lake. On the other hand, it also means that taxpayers are subsidizing rich beach communities like Duck NC and Seaside FL, as well as casinos on the Mississippi coast. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/79 "2012-11-13T13:41:21Z")
Warning: I’m going to argue both sides of the fence. That’s partly because I don’t think it’s a simple “yes or no” question, and partly because regardless of “side” we should focus on good arguments, not bad ones. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > Now, to an extent the libertarian can posit legitimate government action here - the principle function of a libertarian government is to maintain order, so it’s perfectly acceptable to send in troops to prevent looting and other human-caused mayhem. But this is an answer to only a tiny sliver of the riddle, and the plain truth is that the aftermath of a major disaster is an perfect illustration of a situation where the ability of a national government to bring massive resources to bear on a problem can alleviate the situation in a way that no local government preparedness or private charity can hope to. The ability to respond to major disasters is a strong argument for a central government that goes beyond the minimalist libertarian state. I agree with this, and it’s one of the reasons I don’t call myself a libertarian. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Many arguments dealing with the “don’t live there” argument have already been presented above. We discussed why some people do have to live there in spite of increased risk, > and also pointed out that since hurricanes are not the only natural disaster that can befall someone, there are few, if any places in this country where one can be truly without risk. However, they don’t address my specific point, which is you don’t have to live in a flood plane. When I bought a house, I looked into flood insurance. Know what? I couldn’t buy any. Why not? Because I was NOT in a flood plane where the government subsidized it. When I looked at the map for where it could be bought, gee … it was all those places that keep getting flooded during bad storms! So why is the government subsidizing people living where these hazards exist? Answer: because businessmen who wanted favors from Uncle Sam pushed through the legislation. I question whether that is good for the country. Note that I acknowledge the counterargument, which is that we and the economy are all far better of with this subsidized insurance, so that shorelines can be developed, leading to for example the huge beach economy of the NC Outer Banks. I’m not convinced by that argument, but I think it deserves serious consideration. > [@CannyDan](#): > > The victims of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (I speak from personal experience) who lived miles and miles inland would object to your characterization of their location as “flood plain”. The term is more correctly applied to areas that are seasonally flooded by rivers, including during exceptional (e.g., ‘hundred year’) events. I’m going by the federal map that defines where flood insurance is subsidized by the government, which is offically called a “flood plane” in the maps. If you live in one of these areas, you might not think you’re in a flood plane, but you run significant risk of flooding during a big storm. > [@](#): > > Do we declare the entire seaboard and all adjacent states to be a “live there at your own risk” territory in Libertopia? > > This has nothing whatever to do with the humanitarian aid, law and order, relief for uninsured (commonly uninsurable due to insurers refusals) losses, and rebuilding of infrastructure beyond the means of local governments that is provided by FEMA. > [@tomcar](#): > > Its a trick question, the US supports all big businesses in numerous ways. You dont get to be big without goverment help. So some become monopolies… > > Which points to the irony of libertarianism - all these rich old white guys who want to not pay taxes, etc only got rich because of the government support. The US goverment created a system where you guys could make money and thrive. Thank the goverment, pay your dues and learn to care about others. [/quote] Libertarians would say “yes”. I would say that we shouldn’t have federally subsidized insurace for predictable risks, like flood plains, but that we should have FEMA for unpredictable ones. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > As to flood insurance, this simply isn’t true. The whole reason the National Flood Insurance Program exists is because the risk-pooled cost of flood insurance in the private market was too expensive to allow expanded construction into beachfront and flood-plain areas. Back when Florida and the Gulf Coast were hillbilly wastelands, no one outside of the area much cared about these costs, but when they became desirable retirement and vacation destinations, people began to complain that the frequency of hurricane weather made the cost of insuring against flood damage prohibitively high. > > The NFIP was set up to subsidize these costs. It offers flood insurance at premiums well below the actuarial cost. Taxpayers who do not have flood insurance (i.e., who are outside the risk pool) are on the hook to pay any cost of claims that exceed premiums paid. One can argue about whether or not this is a good policy idea, but it’s not just a bigger version of an ordinary insurance risk pool. > > Every area of the country is subject to natural disasters, but insurance costs for various disasters differ because those disasters happen with different frequencies and cause different amounts of damages. Tornadoes are common, but the geographic scope of their damage is much more limited than that of a hurricane. Earthquakes strong enough to cause devastation on the scale of a hurricane happen far more rarely than hurricanes. > > As to every other form of natural disaster, the risk-adjusted cost of insuring against those disasters is entirely built into the cost of living there. The earthquake insurance rider purchased by a person living near the Hayward fault covers the actuarial cost of insuring that home, and the only money that will be used to pay claims for damages under those policies is the money paid into the risk pool by other insureds over time. The same is true for tornadoes, wildfires, etc. > > Flood insurance is qualitatively different because it is subsidized from outside. On the one hand, this is great because it preserves New Orleans, a cultural gem built below sea level next to a giant lake. On the other hand, it also means that taxpayers are subsidizing rich beach communities like Duck NC and Seaside FL, as well as casinos on the Mississippi coast. Well put. Any attempt to say it’s all good or all bad is oversimplifying. My feeling is that the federal government should do less than it now does, but not abandon FEMA altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758/80 "2012-11-13T13:42:15Z")
Everyone take a deep breath and a step back. Libertarianism is about ideological purity, not real world solutions to things like natural disasters. It certainly isn’t about getting anybody elected to an office high enough to actually implement any Libertarian ideas. Threads like this one feed the Libertarian need to make condescending statements to the rabble, but serve no other purpose. Worrying about what would happen in Libertopia is on a par with worrying about what will happen if Frodo doesn’t succeed in destroying that ring. Libertarians are the single most self-marginalizing political group in the US. Chill out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-libertarians-think-should-happen-when-disasters-strike/640758.md?page=5)