Letters

From the March 2007 issue

(Page 2 of 3)

Shortly after reading "A Healthy Dose of Anarchy," I came across "Decision Making in Very Large Networks," by Peter J. Denning and Rick Hayes-Roth, in the November Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery. It offers an interesting theoretical framework for understanding FEMA's comparative failure and informal relief networks' comparative success in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster.

Turns out it has a lot to do with Friedrich Hayek's insight that central planning of markets is bound to fail because of the inability of any planning body to gather enough information that is current enough and interrelated enough to act intelligently. Since the same kind of chaos-in both the vernacular and mathematical senses-prevails after a natural disaster on the scale of Katrina, it should come as no surprise that predefined, formalized government disaster recovery efforts cannot be expected to accomplish much.

Rich Homa

Menomonie, WI

Who Deserves the Libertarian Vote?

"Who Deserves the Libertarian Vote?" (December) provided a good array of opinions. I think it would be best to forget parties altogether. If someone has libertarian positions as a Democrat, don't vote for him because "the Democrats are a better choice for libertarians"; vote for him because he is the better candidate. If there is only a Libertarian Party candidate, vote for him. But if either the Republican or Democrat in a race espouses libertarian ideals and has a chance of winning, you are obligated to give him your support.

Being in knee-jerk opposition to the two major parties is ineffective. We need more libertarian ideas, not necessarily more elected Libertarian Party members.

Aron Milberg

Newton, MA

Butch Otter Rides Again

Rep. Butch Otter ("Butch Otter Rides Again," November) voted against the PATRIOT Act and in favor of prohibiting flag burning. From a purely libertarian perspective, the PATRIOT Act-to address a situation in which lives may be at stake-is actually more justifiable than a ban on flag burning, which puts neither lives nor property at risk.

To Otter, the flag is not your flag or my flag; it is "our brand." But in his attempt to preserve our abstract "property," he has voted to violate our right to actual property and has diminished what our brand represents. The flag that doesn't allow itself to be burned symbolizes prohibition, not freedom. Indeed, if everyone who owned a flag had burned it in protest of this vote, our brand would be stronger, not weaker.

Otter's right to fly his flag is not at stake here. No one on the other side wants to force him to burn it. We expect that same right in return.

Robert Kraft

Chicago, IL