MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Apocalypse Soon: Florida to Partially Privatize Disaster Insurance Program

Credit: NASACredit: NASAOver at Vanity Fair, Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter, laments “the most discomforting” display of crony capitalism he’s covered in a “long career of writing about business.” Florida is in the process of privatizing a small portion of its government-run disaster insurance program, and everything is not exactly on the up and up.

The plan is for the state to pay a connected insider $52 million to handpick 60,000 policies (out of over a million) to take off the state’s hands. Presumably, he’ll choose those with the least amount of risk. The way Eichenwald tells it, it’s a sweetheart deal for sure.

But the veteran reporter’s explication of government-run insurance is a bit off the mark.

Says Eichenwald:

I hate that I have to address this through the “here’s why it’s good for you” approach, rather than just saying working people shouldn’t be forced [italics added] to be homeless simply because they live in Florida, but here goes:

If hundreds of thousands of people could not afford property insurance, that means that hundreds of thousands of pieces of property could possibly be destroyed in a hurricane and then never rebuilt. Florida could become a wasteland of wrecked homes and businesses. Hundreds of thousands of people could be homeless—meaning either taxes go up to help them, they simply wander the state, or they leave.

To which I have to say, if you cannot purchase insurance from a private provider that is the free market screaming, pleading, tearing its hair out, and repeatedly punching itself in the face all in an earnest attempt to get you not to build where you’re building. Forcing—word used correctly this time—taxpayers to subsidize such development encourages people to live in hurricane-prone areas in housing ill equipped to withstand a hurricane.

Moreover, the policies in question aren’t limited to just the poor and middle class as far as I can tell. As John Stossel has repeatedly and heroically explained, these programs often subsidize oceanfront living for the rich.

Eichenwald also weirdly wraps his narrative around the Tea Party, the bashing of which must be SEO maximizing or perhaps just psychically satisfying, for the Tea Party has naught to do with the story. Still though, it is crony capitalism and it’s a bad business—just maybe not an apocalypse to be laid at the feet of Eichenwald's ideological opposites.  

Click here for a handy Reason reading list on disaster response policy.

Photo Credit: NASA

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    Eichenwald also weirdly wraps his narrative around the Tea Party

    When you imagine the Devil is all around you, not mentioning him is the same helping him. The Tea Party has to have something to do with this, otherwise they might not be the all-powerful and dangerous opponent that is worthy of a god like Eichenwald to keep us lowly sorts safe from.

  • PapayaSF||

    It's a current lefty talking point that the Tea Party has taken over Florida and that's why all sorts of terrible things are happening there.

    I really wonder what it would take to build a (mostly) hurricane-proof house. I suspect it's possible, but that nobody wants to spend 50-100% more in construction costs when they can just take their chances and pay some insurance.

  • SugarFree||

    Live underground, the only part the house above is a mosquito-proof screened room with a patio for grilling and all of the pieces are made to break apart and be put back together, like Legos.

    Or a beetle-shaped house that can scurry north when need arises.

  • RBS||

    I live on the coast. There is a house down here that is supposedly hurricane proof. It looks like a UFO.

  • SugarFree||

  • RBS||

  • SugarFree||

    A friend of mine in high school lived in one of those, only it was on stilts like in Body Double.

  • RBS||

    Was it hurricane proof? That's just what everyone told us growing up and I never really cared enough to find out if it was tue. Although, now that I think about it the claims that it would just float out to sea seem a bit far fetched.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, if it was hurricane-proof, then that means UFO are not very flight-worthy.

    Derek's was sticking out of the side of a cliff for one, and Kentucky gets few hurricanes for another. His parents were DEFCON-3 hippies, so the UFO house was probably something that came to them in a dream or some nonsense.

    It was a pretty cool house for all that, except the "back door" was a three story spiral staircase that was as rickety as a 50 cent whore.

  • RBS||

    Hmmm, I get the feeling those old beach hobos may have been lying.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It does look like it would handle a small to moderate storm surge, what with it being up on stilts. I have no idea if it could withstand the wind or the debris being pushed by a storm surge.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Supposedly domes are hurricane proof. Don't know why domes never became popular.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • General Butt Naked||

    I actually thought, "It's probably some dumbass building code that makes them unpopular." But figured that was just a bit of paranoia.

    Every time that I think I may be a bit paranoid of the government's power to fuck up something good, I'm reminded that the capacity for stupid is nearly infinite without market corrections.

  • DesigNate||

    It's a wonder more architects aren't libertarians after dealing with all of the bullshit cities put you through. And any owner that's been through the building process should understand they don't really own their property.

  • SIV||

    Building codes. If you want to enjoy a tasty all-you-can-eat catfish dinner after a vacuum metastability event head to Jerry's Catfish #2 in Florence Mississippi. It has always been my dream to buy this place and make all the waitresses dress like Gabrielle Drake in UFO

  • SIV||

  • ||

    Most of the places that are prone to hurricane damage are on the coast and hence barely 5 to 10 feet above sea level. Even without the 5 t0 10 foot storm surge an underground house is quickly underwater as well. The fact is, it would cost a fortune in pumping to keep it dry in any weather any time of the year.

    Any place in Florida where it's even feasible to build an underground house (not much of the state) a house built to the old Southern Building Code is more than adequate to survive a hurricane there. The new state standards are overkill.

  • ||

    Didn't the Haitians build largely hurricane proof concrete slab housing? I believe they found it was vulnerable to OTHER disasters though.

  • DEG||

    I really wonder what it would take to build a (mostly) hurricane-proof house

    An ex-girlfriend's father had a place in Florida that was supposed to be able to withstand the winds and debris hurled by any Category 3 hurricane, assuming he put the storm shutters (which came with the house) in place.

    The house was also built with flooding in mind.

    The house was not cheap.

  • ||

    All new construction in Florida has to be able to withstand a Cat 3. In coastal counties that's been the rule for about forty years. It's been made statewide since Hurricane Andrew, though there is some reduction for wind speed in inland counties.

    Coastal counties also require houses to be build above the flood stage so in Monroe County (the Keys) you find most houses built on stilts.

    A substantial portion of the damage from Andrew in Miami-Dade was due to the fact that a huge number of houses had been built without coming close to the established building code. Inspectors simply turned a blind eye to inadequate nailing etc. Whether any palms were actually greased was never established.

  • ||

    Whether any palms were actually greased was never established.

    Why does it matter if palm trees are greased?

  • Atlas Slugged||

    Its not very difficult. The buildings will all be made out of steel re-inforced concrete and not very sightly, but they will hold up. Okinawa gets hit several times each year with typhoons and there is rarely any major structural damage.

  • johnl||

    People in other countries build hurricane proof houses. Florida's straw houses in swamps are a broken windows economic program.

  • ||

    Kurt Eichenwald...that sounds sort of like the name a boy, say one cloned in Brazil, might take. I'm just speculating here, that's all. I would never want to actively Godwin a thread or anything.

  • SugarFree||

    Bah. Everyone knows all of Hitler's clones live in the USA under the name Baruch Goldbergstein.

  • ||

    All of them, NutraSweetStein? All of them? Even the "female" one you...uh...fooled around with in Panama? Don't think we don't remember that. I have pictures too.

  • SugarFree||

    It doesn't live as a female. And don't judge. I was butt-chugging a lot of pure grain around that time.

  • ||

    "Was"?!? What is different about what you do now?!?

  • SugarFree||

    Vaporizer.

  • sarcasmic||

    Stein? Like any self respecting Hitler clone would choose a Jewish name. Sheesh.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's part of its camouflage.

  • General Butt Naked||

    beard:closet gay guy::those curly hasidic sideburn things:secret hitler clone

    beard = wife

    curly hasidic sideburn things = super jewish name

    What are those things called? They have to have a name.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Sidelocks (Pe'ot)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Raptor Websites||

    This is why the rich get richer.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So reason wants only the wealthy to build in Florida or along the coasts? (Who will service the wealthy in their reinforced homes? Tend their lawns and pump their gas?)

    If you're not going to subsidize me, Johnny Lunchpale, living in Mother Nature's stomping grounds then I'm just going to take my votes elsewhere.

  • ||

    A substantial number of the housekeeping, maintenance and landscaping people who work in the Florida Keys are picked up by buses in Homestead, Florida and driven down US 1 to the various places they work.

    There may be a few Johnny Lunchpale types who got in early enough and have older houses in Marathon, Big Pine or Key West itself, but I suspect there are fewer and fewer by the year.

    The cause is not solely due to storms, of course. There is not all that much buildable land and regulation and NIMBYism are reducing that at a pretty decent clip.

  • ||

    Plus property taxes mean that poor people have a harder time paying their rent to the government, and the home is worth millions, so they are better off selling it.

  • ||

    They're going to get the feds to subsidize the building of a HSR line down the center of Florida - that way they can rapidly shuttle their help in and out of the state to Georgia.

  • Jerryskids||

    But remember - if you built your house in a low-lying hurricane-prone area, you didn't build that. If you didn't build it, why should you be expected to pay to re-build it?

  • ||

    This is a prime opportunity for Florida Tea Parties to protest. This is the sort of shit that makes capitalism look bad to the left, even though it's entirely enabled by the state.

  • ||

    I'm afraid that the Tea Party as now constituted is not really speaking consistently on issues like this.

    As near as I can tell the bulk of the Florida Tea Party is complaining about Medicare cuts, highway tolls and that homeowners insurance is too expensive.

    To a large degree the insurance problem in Florida is due in large part by populist policies that kept premiums from rising to meet the increased risks of growing coastal development.

    Inland residents do have a legitimate beef since their premiums are now higher to bail out coastal residents*. But even with that premiums were kept low by regulators for far too long.

    *It's interesting how liberals frame the insurance discussion on class warfare lines. It really is about time they admitted that they just love to subsidize the wealthy.

  • Fluffy||

    To which I have to say, if you cannot purchase insurance from a private provider that is the free market screaming, pleading, tearing its hair out, and repeatedly punching itself in the face all in an earnest attempt to get you not to build where you’re building.

    But I wanna see the ocean!

    MARKET FAILURE if I don't get to see the ocean!

  • Fluffy||

    To which I have to say, if you cannot purchase insurance from a private provider that is the free market screaming, pleading, tearing its hair out, and repeatedly punching itself in the face all in an earnest attempt to get you not to build where you’re building.

    If it was up to the free market, we'd all be stuck living in safe areas in high-density arcologies with low transportation capitalization and maintenance costs!

    Will no one think of the mini-mall developers? Or the big box retailer developers? Have you no soul, Ross?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Can't tell if serious.

  • Dweebston||

    The exclamation point is usually a good sign.

  • RBS||

  • Dweebston||

    Oh, Elaine. I was too young when the show was on to lust after her properly, and now she plays a menopausal woman in her new sitcom.

    At least she got to be a crosseyed attorney in AD.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And everyone knows that sort of thing is only acceptable if it's the result of government diktat.

  • robc||

    Does anyone else want to know how authors react to the reason coverage of their stories? Do they even know about it. Did John Ross send him an email with a link, for example?

    I know we see it sometime (rarely), but there really should be more interactivity in the journalism profession. Drive by articles without later attempts to defend your piece, or you know, maybe learn something, are generally less than worthless.

  • SugarFree||

    They come here to object, read a few of the comments, recoil in terror and run off. As it should be.

  • ||

    Well, when they realize that our comment threads are abnormal, non-Euclidian, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from theirs, they probably learn their lesson. And it's all your fault!

  • ||

    Though sometimes the revelation drives them mad and they join the cult, to laugh and dance and kill.

    Like Stossel.

  • Dweebston||

    Stossel wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy.

  • ||

    Heh, yeah I was just wondering how they react to the uncensored commentariat here. Even Reason writers need a pretty damn thick skin.

    I vaguely remember some lefty whining that Reason allows it's commenters to say whatever they think.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    where "think" is very loosely defined.

  • robc||

    I vaguely remember some lefty whining that Reason allows it's commenters to say whatever they think.

    Unless what you think involves certain people doing certain activities with certain barnyard animals.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Or they consult an attourney and enter the depravity that is the Reason comments section into the permanent legal record.

    If they're rumored to be sheep fuckers, that is.

  • Dweebston||

    I've heard this story referred to a few times. Any chance there's a link involved, somewhere?

  • RBS||

    Try searching through Sullum's old posts.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The reason(!) that it's so hard to search for posts now is because of that case (my theory).

    I used to be able to google Reason posts and comments pretty easily, but it's a sumbitch now, and I think that's so people written about can't google their names and find all the horrible things written about them in the comments section here.

    The story is that reason put up a post about an attorney, and a bunch of people commented that the guy was a sheep fucker, which was a popular meme around here at the time. The guy sued reason, and the comments were recorded in the official court transcripts. It was hilarious.

    Here's a link to the story about the case. If you can find the transcripts (probably in the comments) check them out, they're really funny.

  • Dweebston||

    Wow. Really, all I have to say about thi


    ch explains why I find that entire branch of the industry a heinous blemish on Western legal practice.

  • RBS||

    When they do react and write about it it's usually pretty whiney.

  • robc||

    Yeah, Ive noticed.

    I guess its one of those things that bloggers generally do that old school journalists havent figured out yet.

    But either way, they are going to be whiny.

  • SugarFree||

    They aren't used to be questioned by their inferiors.

  • sarcasmic||

    Does anyone else want to know how authors react to the reason coverage of their stories?

    I imagine it goes something like this:

    "Reason? What the fuck is Reason? A libertarian magazine? Who cares?"

  • ||

    I imagine that most just pretend Reason doesn't exist. If they engaged Reason's writers then they would be in effect be giving them legitimacy. Better to ignore them and pretend they don't matter.

  • Dweebston||

    It doesn't take much pretending to dismiss Reason from existence when their first flippant thought is "What, some tea-partier manifesto?"

  • carolacosta1||

    my buddy's aunt makes $76 every hour on the computer. She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her check was $14817 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here... http://www.Taz1.com

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    You Lie.

  • ||

    Has anyone ever clicked this link to see what it is?
    I am curious, but I am afraid to click the link and infect my computer with whatever scam they have going.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I wouldn't touch that link with Warty's computer.

  • PS||

    I wouldn't have a problem touching that link with Warty's computer, I'd just have a problem touching Warty's computer.

  • Generic Stranger||

    True; aside from the various STD's present on the mouse, keyboard, and monitor, there's always the risk of being present when the FBI finally raids the place, which could be embarrassing.

  • Dweebston||

    For them and you, but you'd have less excuse.

  • ||

    Yes. It's an MLM (pyramid) scheme.

    You pay them a a few hundred dollars for a slick website that has an affiliate link promoting their program.

    So you pay for the opportunity to lure other people into paying for the opportunity to lure other people into... you get the idea...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    sounds lucrative. can I borrow $200?

  • ||

    Heh, I figured it was something like that.

    One of the guys that used to hang out in the gun shop where I drink gallons of coffee started one of those.

    He now hangs out with a different bunch. The striped suit bunch. And the IRS is after him for 1.5 million.

  • Sevo||

    "And the IRS is after him for 1.5 million."
    Damn tea-bagger, right?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    For British Eyes Only: A secret affair with the potential to rock the Government was revealed last night, leaving David Cameron "stunned".

  • robc||

    No names? What kind of lame reporting is that?

  • ||

    That is a really amazing story. Too bad they wont tell us what it is.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    I guess their legal department doesn't work on Sunday in order to check for libel.

  • Sevo||

    In Brit-land, isn't "libel" just saying something someone doesn't like?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yep.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Hence the no names

  • ||

    Not quite, but they do not have a lot of tolerance for a robust give-and-take -of views.

    For example,

    A corporation can bring suit for defamation

    A private individual only has to show negligence to succeed

    And most importantly, the burden of proof is on the *defendant* to prove the claims are not defamation.

  • WomSom||

    Sounds like some pretty serious smack to me dude. Wow.

    www.WorldPrivacy.tk

  • ||

    Speaking of the twisted commentariat here, what kind of online magazine has a Bot as a regular and beloved commenter? So much so that it has been nick-named?

    We are a sick bunch.

  • SugarFree||

    If you stop digging around looking for the pony you will eventually have to face the fact that you're just a chump.

  • PS||

    Shriek is beloved?

  • ||

    I consider

    - "Roll that beautiful bean footage!"
    -"Sounds like some pretty serious smack to me dude. Wow."
    -" Now that dude really knows what time it is!"

    to be far more valuable contributions to these threads than anything shreek ever had to say.

    Obama is an ardent defender of the second amendment. My god, it just takes the breath away.

  • ||

    Wait a minute. Obama is an ardent defender of the second amendment....didnt I hear some other lefty say this in exactly those words? Just in the last day or two...does anyone remember?

    These fuckers really are getting their talking points from some party apparatchik arent they?

  • ||

    Not to mention its creative spelling of the word "jsut"

  • ||

    I liked pornbot much better than anonbot.

    Classy stuff!

  • PS||

    My blogpost on getting flooded in Praha.

  • PS||

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Did the US just beat Germany at soccer?

  • robc||

    "Germany"

    Most of the players from the Champions League Final didnt make the trip.

    But, yes, we did, due, in part, to a beautiful own goal by the goalie, who is trying to win the 3rd spot on the national team for next year's World Cup.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    So the "B" Team.
    Did England beat the Brazil "B" team too?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • ||

  • DesigNate||

    John and sarcasmic porn in one pic. I love it!

    (And her friend was totally fucking right.)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OT:Well, I'll be damned. Never thought my degree would make me qualified to lead a country, but the Palestinians obviously do.

  • ||

    It's a country? I thought it was a retirement plan for Abbas?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    A WOMAN has dumped her cheating boyfriend via a classic break-up note that leads him on a scavenger hunt for his hidden belongings.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I hope the boyfriend called the police and they charged her with larceny.

  • Dweebston||

    How much time does she have to give her evicted boyfriend before tossing his stuff, down in Aussieland?

  • Robert||

    Disaggregating the plan, what's going on under it can be viewed as a combination of privatiz'n and lemon socialism. But surely that's better than no privatiz'n at all. There will enter the private sector those policies that would be profitable for private insurance, and they can be renewed and traded from that point on, while the state will be left insurance-subsidizing the worse risks. That's got to be better than the state's monopolizing the entire field of flood insurance. It will mean that the burden of subsidiz'n will fall on the taxpayers generally, rather than being focused on those who buy insurance. If the subsidy were left on the shoulders of the entire insurance buying market, it would ensure a continuing distortion that would prevent the emergence of a market for those whom it should be profitable to insure.

    As discussed here previously, bldgs. in flood-prone areas should be treated as disposable and hence not insured, but if gov't's going to insure them at attractive rates, better the bounty be from the gen'l treasury.

  • ||

    Yes, this is worse than no privatizing - a private company gets to make money off of cherry-picking the best policies the state holds and the taxpayer is left holding the bag on a worse mix of policy risk.

    The burden *already* falls on taxpayers generally - that's what it means to have the government *insure* anything.

    And if the government is going to insure, then you certainly don't want the insurance funds to come from the general treasury - this is an a area where you want to set up separate fund, funded from premiums, for payouts. if it comes from the general fund then there is absolutely no incentive at all to look at premium versus payout rates at all - at least until the state goes bankrupt after the next storm.

  • Robert||

    Would you rather the state had held all the policies rather than selling some of their liability? How can that not be a good thing?

    And if the government is going to insure, then you certainly don't want the insurance funds to come from the general treasury - this is an a area where you want to set up separate fund, funded from premiums, for payouts.


    No, I do want it to come from the general treasury. Otherwise insurance would simply be unaffordable for much of the unsubsidized segment of the market, and a bad deal for the rest of the unsubsidized segment as gov't used it as a cash cow for the subsidized portion, and gov't would have every incentive to keep the business as a monopoly.

  • ||

    Ugh, except they aren't really selling their liability in a meaninful way. It's nothing more than a payoff.

  • Robert||

    I shouldn't've used the word "selling", I should've written "buying relief from liability", but the point is the same.

  • ||

    That's got to be better than the state's monopolizing the entire field of flood insurance.


    Citizens Property Insurance Corporation does not write flood insurance; the federal government's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does.

    And while the NFIP does have a virtual monopoly on flood insurance since they have set premiums so far below anything resembling a market rate that pretty much no flood insurance is written by any private company, Citizens is only the largest insurance provider in Florida by virtue of the fact that they have completely undercut rates on the highest risk policies.

    I'm pretty sure that most homeowners in inland counties still insure with private firms.

    Just to repeat, Citizens does not offer flood insurance.

  • ||

    last sentence s/b

    "Just to repeat, Citizens does not offer flood insurance and it does not have a monopoly on homeowners insurance.

    "Citizens is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt government corporation whose public purpose is to provide insurance protection to Florida property owners throughout the state. The corporation insures hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses and condominiums whose owners otherwise might not be able to find coverage."

  • ||

    This reminds me of the arguments against closing the National Helium Reserve.

    We can't close the National Helium Reserve because there are no private helium suppliers, because the National Helium Reserve has been selling helium below market rates for so long they've all gone out of business.

  • ||

    Ag's right. This has the taxpayer paying the losses and a private group collecting the profits. Remember, capitalism is a system of profit and loss-- and having the risk of losses is very important. This throws that out of balance, and results in one of the worst systems possible: corporatism.

  • Robert||

    I take it you didn't like the Ferrara plan to get the Social Security liability off gov't's hands either.

  • ||

    That's not even close to the same thing.

  • Robert||

    Sure it was. The proposal was for the U.S. gov't to buy out the liability for individuals "now" by buying them some sort of investment instrument (I don't remember which kind) that would be a legal obligation, rather than the payment eligibility for SS, which can be wiped out or modified by an act of Congress.

  • RBS||

    Speaking of responding:

    BetaDad responds to his critics and trolls.

  • John||

    That clown really set himself up to get it from all sides. He might have just been another internet beta liberal douche if he hadn't put in the part about how the only people he knew who were trying to work on not objectifying women was Christians. That reference ensured the Left would hate him too.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What's funny is how the guy says that propositioning a stranger is sexism, therefore thinking the same thing is sort of wrong. How is that so, and are their degrees of sexism involved? Seems kinda circular to me.

  • John||

    He is basically saying it is as bad to fantasize about something as it is to do it. That is both a very puritanical view and also a view that doesn't take into account how human minds really work. People need fantasy as a safe outlet. I don't believe that you can turn someone into a racist. But if I had to pick the mostly likely method to do such, I don't think I could come up with a better method than telling a straight man never to fantasize about women.

  • ||

    I don't get how propositioning a stranger is *sexism*.

    I thought sexism was like racism - you attribute inferior qualities simply because of the ethnic/gender group a person is part of.

    I can see how propositioning someone can be rude, creep, and/or insulting - I just don't see how it can be sexism.

    On another note - is this guy seriously saying that *every* sexual encounter you have MUST be with someone you understand as a "whole person" and be full of emotional impact and can never be simply that sex is fun?

    And if so, what makes sex different from any other interaction I have with another person? Should I need to have an emotional relationship with the cashier at the store? Or how about my opponent in a game of tennis?

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're trying to understand the mind of a neo-puritan and there is no logic behind that man's irrational feelings of ickyness.

    I'm telling you, if a witch burning puritan was time-traveled to now they'd fit right in with the PC worry-police.

  • John||

    And that blog has to be read to be believed. If I set up a blog to parody and troll stay at home dads, I doubt I would have the nerve to write something that so obviously meets every stereotype as what this guy's actual blog is.

  • robc||

    Most people are two dimensional cardboard cutouts.

    Which is why Rand's novels actually end up being realistic.

  • John||

    Fact is stranger than fiction. There is that old cliche about how if you wrote this or that person in a book no one would believe you. Maybe Rand is an actual real life example of that.

  • Butts Wagner||

    HE'S A LOUIS CK FAN, GUYS!! HE'S COOL!!

  • Lord at War||

    Gentlemen-

    I give you Sensational Nikki! (PDF)

    I must admit noticing she required "stronger hand urging in the final stages"...

  • robc||

    KY bred, but duh.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If you were a smart bot, you'd quit using fake examples with female names on a libertarian comments' section. Everybody knows that there aren't any femal libertarians.

    Evelyn? Really dude?

  • SIV||

    Evelyn Waugh was a dude.

    More evidence our educational system only teaches the youngins to obey authority and run up debt.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    We have not yet reached complete equality.

  • ||

    Jeez Louise - if you just kept the state out of marriage and allowed people to arrange their private lives as they see fit then this sort of thing wouldn't keep happening.

    As tolerant as I am, eventually all the groups I'm ok with will be able to get state protection for their economic arrangements and then the furries will be next up.

  • RyanXXX||

    Anyone watch Thrones? Hehe

  • A Serious Man||

    That was quite a wedding.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I hope none of my favorite characters suffer harm.

  • BlueBook||

    Yeah, that was pretty harsh, but it opens up more possibilities for serving up an ice-cold glass of revenge down the road.

  • MJGreen||

    If anyone needs to induce vomiting and is all out of ipecac, check out the #goodbyeGOP hashtag trending on twitter. All the stupid talking points of the past year, concentrated for your convenience.

  • A Serious Man||

    They're delusional. Let them go full-retard on the gun control issue and the president's scandals and convince themselves that they'll win the House next year.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    As if I needed a reminder of why I hate Twitter and everything it represents:


    TPtrees
    Because #Romney lost by a LANDSLIDE, America has spoken #GoodbyeGOP

    wilewill
    RT @RiskyLiberal: You hate government. So we're kicking you out of ours #goodbyegop

    the_blakenator
    RT @TheDailyEdge: You claim to be Christian, but you take food and healthcare away from children, the poor and the elderly? #GoodbyeGOP

    sexysteph61
    For scheming to install theocracy in the USA, #AmericanTaliban #FauxChristians #GoodByeGOP

    SPeteDave
    RT @SheSheGo: #GoodbyeGOP Because you think men are dominant and women are submissive. You make caveman look enlightened.

    gailcat22
    RT @doodlebug0: #goodbyegop for white old men who want a say in whether a woman uses birth control or not.

    jameseatontyler
    RT @StillCrazy808: How many U.S. kids going to bed hungry could have been fed w/ $71,225,000.00? It's time to say, #GoodbyeGOP.

    GreenGoodmaker
    Obama can regulate emissions and fund a clean energy economy when we say #GoodbyeGOP
  • ||

    Hijack it and start talking about the federal reserve.

  • ||

    Sigh.

    I really wish there was a way that I could let them live out their fantasies in a way that didn't make me suffer.

    If there was a truly free country out there, I'd be in it, and then I'd laugh my ass off when this place burned to the ground.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Public-private "privatization" is not privatization at all, and is not libertarian.

  • ||

    Of course the way to "privatize" Citizens would be for them to do what any private insurer that could not maintain their policies. Namely notify all their policyholders that they will not be renewing any policies and that they are going out of business when all current policies have expired.

    Not politically feasible, but given the public's hankering for free stuff no even semi-libertarian solution is.

  • WomSom||

    lol, looks like Floridians are screwed, nothing new there lol.

    www.WorldPrivacy.tk

  • ||

    I am perpetually amazed by the level of economic illiteracy displayed by people on the left.

    First of all, not being able to buy disaster insurance doesn't mean you can't build anywhere you damn well please. It just means that if your house is wiped out by a hurricane, nobody is going to give you money to rebuild. You are still free to take your own risks.

    Second of all, unsubsidized disaster insurance doesn't mean disaster insurance won't be available at all, it just means that it will be more expensive. If it's really not available at all, that means that the area is so disaster prone that no sane person would risk building there. But the claim that disaster insurance would be completely unavailable in the entire state of Florida is plainly absurd.

    Thirdly, more expensive disaster insurance doesn't mean nobody can afford it, it just means that housing prices, wages, lot size and so on will adjust until the cost of insurance is accomodated by people's budgets. So Floridians might end up with slightly smaller houses on slightly smaller lots, or with slightly higher wages to pay for the insurance. Although they are already paying for the insurance in taxes anyway, so the extra cost of insurance would really just be reallocated towards the people with the bigger more exposed (i.e. beachfront) homes.

  • Raptor Denver SEO||

    I agree that they should not allow this for them to pick who are they going to cater to including the fact they are accepting funds for insurance but not offering the service. Denver SEO

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online