Tennessee Volunteers

Jesse Walker | September 15, 2005

A maddening report in TPM Cafe tells how some private citizens organized an airlift to evacuate hundreds of hospital patients and others from New Orleans -- and how the federal government did its best to block them all the way.

As a footnote, one of the people involved with the operation was former vice president Al Gore. A fellow called Greg in Oz comments: "How very libertarian: only as a private individual is a politician effective."

Comments

Jeff P.|9.16.05 @ 12:12AM|#

It sounds like a subplot out of Gilliam's Brazil.
"you can't save those flood victims! You don't have the right forms!"

|9.16.05 @ 12:33AM|#

The evidence is that this tragedy is a disaster that was made, and then made worse by big government. Damn the state!

It has been widely known for a long time that that key levees would not withstand a cat. five hurricane surge, and that when one finally hit, the city would face ruination with loss of life. But, the government owned the levy and, "Oh well". If the levees were privately owned there would, of course, be insurance contracts that would engender much more resilient levees that would be built to withstand the storm that was widely believed would eventually descend upon New Orleans.

Then government made the disaster caused by government ownership of the levees worse by stopping the Red Cross from helping folks. Government adapts inflexible categorical mind- sets: "Evacuate the city. Anything that gets in the way of evacuating the city must be stopped". It doesn't matter to the government's idiot mind-set that the Red Cross would likely have saved lives and reduced suffering. And mow this horror story. It's like the government was working as a fifth column within N.O., against its people, to further an invading enemy's aims.

|9.16.05 @ 12:39AM|#

...Make that: "And *now* this horror story."

Oh Preview button, why do I forsake thee?

|9.16.05 @ 12:50AM|#

Well, I kind of think that incompetence _is_ relevant here. Governmental executives are good at consensus-building and the like, but they're not good practical managers.

|9.16.05 @ 1:41AM|#

I find it shocking that so many libertarians are shocked that the government failed so miserably. I mean, this really should be expected.

|9.16.05 @ 1:49AM|#

And mow this horror story.

Maybe you were thinking of Stephen King's "Lawnmower Man"?

By the way, this stuff isn't new. I believe Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies recounts incidence of various government agencies trying to squash volunteer efforts in Florida after Hurricane Andrew -- for example, people acting as traffic directors at intersections where the lights no longer worked -- because they weren't "properly" trained and credentialed, etc.

|9.16.05 @ 2:37AM|#

How does one profit from a levee?

And wasn't the fuck up in N.O. more in local gov's court than fed's?

|9.16.05 @ 3:09AM|#

Jared, you're never gonna git a gummint job if you keep thinking like that.

|9.16.05 @ 3:26AM|#

Bullshit, i'll get Mike Browns old spot for such spot on, accurate, placing-the-blame-wholly-in-the correct-blue-state-area, style of thought.

Ron Hardin|9.16.05 @ 3:47AM|#

Check out John Gall _Systemantics_ on why every bureaucracy is insane.

The original (1975) was small and a real gem, privately published; it has grown like topsy into a huge book now but still has some value. I'd avoid the next edition.

What you're seeing here is probably a cross between

1. Intrasystem goals come first

and

2. Systems attract systems-people.

|9.16.05 @ 8:05AM|#

Jared, one profits from a levee the same way that one profits from a fence or a door lock.

|9.16.05 @ 9:00AM|#

tarran,

That's only true if the leveee protects the property of a singlwe landowner.

The problem with levees is their expense to build and maintain relative to the value they provide. Levees provide no value in and of themselves, they only allow a protection of land so that the protected land can generate value. If the protected land is divided amongst several landowners, you get into the difficulty of determining who's getting what value from it and how the expense of it should be apportioned.

And then the whole "tragedy of the commons" scenario plays out. Basically it's "My levee protects me. And since my levee also protects you, you owe me."

|9.16.05 @ 9:42AM|#

That's not the "tragedy of the commons" which refers to property which is not owned by anyone but used by many.

You are refering to the "free-rider" problem, which is often, in my mind, overblown.

It does not matter that there are free riders. It only matters that there are property owners sufficiently motivated to fund the levies for their own purposes.

I would think that people with valuable homes and large businesses would buy flood insurance, and the insurance companies would be highly motivated to maintain the levies.

Of course, its possible insurers would refuse to take the risk too, in which case there wouldn't be much development, prompting people to emigrate to greener pastures, and the people who remain, live there at their own risk, which is fine, so long as no-one is fraudulently misrepresenting the risk.

|9.16.05 @ 10:12AM|#

One needn't make a net profit on paper from something for it to be a profitable gamble, Jared. After all, does you "profit" from having car and home insurance?

The "profit" is only realized if the right (wrong) circumstances befall you, and, at that point, a relative cost comparison is done: what would I have to pay now if I didn't have insurance, versus, how much did I pay for the insurance policy in the first place,a nd how much is it worth to me to be able to avoid financial ruin?

A viable levee is little more than an insurance policy. "Profit" is only realized at the point of catastrophe, and then, only relative to the alternative.

|9.16.05 @ 10:22AM|#

The problem with Russ D's approach is it presupposes the levees NEEDED to be built, because the land had value to begin with. Given the value of the land about two months ago, it's quite obvious they need to be repaired (or ought to be, anyway), but that's a very different question than whether they should have been built in the first place. It's not like someone stood on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain and said "if we don't throw up a few levees, the hundreds of thousands of people who will be living on this swampy land in a century or so will have soggy feet." Land value is not determined by whether the government thinks it can master nature in the area, it's determined by what individuals and groups think they can do with it. It's easy enough to sit here and think after the fact of how to pay for this levee's upkeep now that the creators and initial motivation for it are lost to history.

|9.16.05 @ 10:31AM|#

And Bush's solution (as indicated by his speech) is to make the government even bigger and increase the scope of the military?

Talk about back-handing private efforts.

And this right after a speech calling for an end to tarrifs and protectionism.

Just what side of the free-market fence is he on?

|9.16.05 @ 10:54AM|#

It does not matter that there are free riders. It only matters that there are property owners sufficiently motivated to fund the levies for their own purposes.

It matters to the free riders when the owner of the levee decides he doesn't want it anymore.

|9.16.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Tarran provides an excellent analysis. Government needs to be designed to function modularly, so that other public and private actors can plug in.

"And wasn't the fuck up in N.O. more in local gov's court than fed's?" That would depend on which particular fuck up you're talking about. It's so hard to keep track.

Russ D., "when the owner of the levee decides he doesn't want it anymore" and makes a gift of it to the city. "Here, it's yours. I'm estimating the value of my donation at $32 million for tax purposes."

|9.16.05 @ 11:31AM|#

rafuzo,

I never presupposed need at all.

A levee has no value otherwise; you would only buy shares in a levee itself if as the owner you had some kind of authority to collect rent on its use. The only people who would willingly pay rent for the service are the people who would benefit from such a service.

My contention is that if you build a levee and then subdivide the protected lands, the leveee becomes either a means to a protection racket or a de facto common property.

|9.16.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Well, if that occurs, the free-rider has four choices: buy the levee, build or procure his own system, sell out and move, or tough it out. Free riders, by their very nature, are not owed anything by those upon whose property or services they mooch.

So, there is no obligation toward free-riders. If one does not want to be at the mercy of others, they should buy a stake or enter into a contractual agreement with the levee owner. The solution to the free rider problem, from the perspective of a free rider is not to be one!
In your previous post, you seemed concerned that the free-rider would be forced to pay for services that they did not wish for. Of course, if I, unasked, shovel my neighbor's walk and driveway free of snow, then my neighbor owes me nothing.

Of course, it could be that I like a clear walkway when walking my dog, and I will shovel the walk for my own purposes regardless of the benefit to my neighbor since the value to me is worth my labor. In fact, I do do this since my neighbor is quite elderly and dpenedent on her son to shovel her walk which usually happens a few days after a storm. I'm impatient so I do it first (out of a mixture of charity and self-interest).

|9.16.05 @ 11:51AM|#

In your previous post, you seemed concerned that the free-rider would be forced to pay for services that they did not wish for.

Well, I might be a bad writer. My concern isn't for the free-riders, it's that the collective that owns the levee will inevitably expand the definition of "beneficiary" to include people that don't actually get any direct benefit from it just so they can reduce their own maintenance costs.

joe,

that "donation" quip is great!

Uncle Sam|9.16.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Boat docks have no inherent value either, they only exist to allow boat owners a place to keep their boats and have access. None the less, docks are valued for the service they provide.
Levees could be maintained by property owners associations. Government, by acting in that manner, displaces individual responsibility for participation in the care of such "commons".

Just what side of the free-market fence is he on?
Politicians use appropriate rhetoric to garner support at the polls.GB doesn't want to go down in history as a "do nothing" president. I'm sure, too, that he would like to see the GOP retain power. Perhaps Jeb will run.

Uncle Sam|9.16.05 @ 12:06PM|#

I find it shocking that so many libertarians are shocked that the government failed so miserably.

Are there any libertarians shocked by all this?
Maddened, certainly, but shocked? I think not.
I couldn't bear to read it all. I certainly is disgusting that some people are so locked-in to "the system" that they are unable to do what needs to be done or allow others to do it.

|9.16.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Russ,

You seem to be missing the point - the "protected lands" came first, not the levees. If the people who gave that land value - by tilling or building or grazing or whatever - decide they need a levee, it should be up to them to figure out how to get it built. And one solution to the problem carries no more moral authority than another. There is no magic property criteria that says once it borders more than one person's property it must become a common property, any more than there is one that says one person must own it and the others pay rent. I'll concede that in this particular case, where the government built the levee first, and the valuable land came later - these solutions don't work. But that's only because of the way it unfolded, not from any normative proscription against it. I think, in regards to most circumstances like this where the value of the land predates the need for protective measure, what you're suggesting is putting the cart before the horse.

|9.16.05 @ 3:41PM|#

rafuzo,

Can you recall any levees built for any reason other than increasing the value of property? I can't. I don't think it could unfold any other way.

|9.16.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Tarran provides an excellent analysis. Government needs to be designed to function modularly, so that other public and private actors can plug in.

That itself is a very interesting idea in general.