In a completely Libertarian world, how would Katrina have been different?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

my point is that we already have huge government bureaucracy as is, and it was that bureaucracy that delayed the aid to New Orleans... A smaller government would've probably gotten it there faster, whether you believe that is the role of government or not.

Maybe this would be best for another thread, but in a completely libertarian world, why do you think NO would have been different? There would've been no army to build the levees...do you think the private sector would have done it instead?

[motivez]

I went ahead and moved this because I thought it was interesting enough to warrant it's own thread.

I think they'll probably say that if the private sector wouldn't have done it, then there's no reason for a city to be there in the first place.. and maybe there isn't.

I know there's a rich cultural history and the port is of great importance, but if the city is sinking, at what point do you give up and stop spending money on "saving" it?

The city is not anywhere close to being back where it was before Katrina, and it probably never will be..

[DosEquis]

It is hard to say. The "free market" libertarian idea is reaction based. I think if there was a disaster on the scale of katrina before than the reaction would have probably been decent. If this was a first time it would be horrible.

Another example, we would be significantly behind even where we are today for alternative fuels because there is simply not enough demand for it. We run out of oil, then there is demand, then we have alternative fuels.

That is the basic problem I have with their ideas. I am not saying the government needs to run everything, but government does have its place in certain circumstances. Large scale emergencies, energy policies that affect the entire country, etc.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Maybe this would be best for another thread, but in a completely libertarian world, why do you think NO would have been different? There would've been no army to build the levees...do you think the private sector would have done it instead?

Or the state/city govt could have built them

But even in a completely libertarian world, the levees could have been built because the mississippi river is a vital link for commerce/defense

[7960]

In a completely libertarian world new orleans wouldn't have existed because the govt wouldn't have built the levees. Some might say private industry would have built them.....private industry would have built dozens and dozens of miles of levees at a cost of billions to build a city below ground? Who would have invested in that? Doubtful.

[DosEquis]

Actually it started in what was to as close to a libertarian world as you can get. It was at the mouth of the largest water trade route to run goods and supplies up to the interior of the country. Mississippi has larger rivers like the ohio and missouri for tributaries. Control of that access point was considered so important they put the city there despite the problems.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Actually it started in what was to as close to a libertarian world as you can get. It was at the mouth of the largest water trade route to run goods and supplies up to the interior of the country. Mississippi has larger rivers like the ohio and missouri for tributaries. Control of that access point was considered so important they put the city there despite the problems.

"they put a city there"

who? who built the levees?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Actually it started in what was to as close to a libertarian world as you can get. It was at the mouth of the largest water trade route to run goods and supplies up to the interior of the country. Mississippi has larger rivers like the ohio and missouri for tributaries. Control of that access point was considered so important they put the city there despite the problems.

Actually at the time of its founding, New Orleans actually occupied a rare high ground above the flood plains that make up most of that area. Over the last nearly 300 years that ground has sunken significantly, and the city has expanded out of where it was originally built into the surrounding floodplains during the 20th century.

"Much of the city is located below sea level between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, so the city is surrounded by levees. Until the early 20th century, construction was largely limited to the slightly higher ground along old natural river levees and bayous, since much of the rest of the land was swampy and subject to frequent flooding. This gave the 19th century city the shape of a crescent along a bend of the Mississippi, the origin of the nickname The Crescent City. In the 1910s engineer and inventor A. Baldwin Wood enacted his ambitious plan to drain the city, including large pumps of his own design which are still used when heavy rains hit the city. Wood's pumps and drainage allowed the city to expand greatly in area."

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

"they put a city there"

who? who built the levees?

A french company started it in 1718. Back then they put buildings on the natural levees. It was put there because of the huge economic benefits, which also shows that the "free market" will do something retarded like build a city on a flood basin if they can make a buck.

The city/state built and took care of it themselves for years and paid for it for years. Attempt after attempt they failed. People wanted to stay because the economic benefit was there.

As far as early history of levees in that place, here is some from wiki

"The first artificial levees and canals were built in early colonial times. They were erected to protect New Orleans against disastrous flooding from the Mississippi River. The "back of town" away from the river originally drained down into the swamps running toward Lake Pontchartrain. Flooding from the lake side was rare and less severe as most of the old town had been built on high ground along the riverfront.

As the city grew, demand for more land encouraged expansion into lower areas more prone to periodic flooding. For most of the 19th century most residential buildings were raised up at least a foot above street level (often several feet), since flooding of the streets was a given at the time.

In the 1830s state engineer George T. Dunbar proposed an ambitious system of underground drainage canals beneath the streets. The goal was to drain water by gravity into the low lying swamps, supplementing this with canals and mechanical pumps. The first of the city's steam engine powered drainage pumps, adapted from a ship's paddle wheel and used to push water along the Orleans Canal out to Bayou St. John, was constructed in this decade. However, only a few of Dunbar's plans were actually implemented as the panic of 1837 largely ended major systematic improvements for a generation.

In 1859 surveyor Louis H. Pilié improved the drainage canals, bricking in some portions. Four large steam "draining machines" were built to push water through the canals into the lake.

In 1871, some 36 miles of canals were built in the city for both improved drainage and small vessel shipping within town. However, despite earlier efforts, at the end of the 19th century it was still common for water to cover streets from curb to curb after rainstorms, sometimes for days.

In 1893, the city government formed the Drainage Advisory Board to come up with better solutions to the city's drainage problems. Extensive topographical maps were made and some of the nation's top engineers were consulted. In 1899, a bond was floated, and a 2 mill per dollar property tax approved, which funded and founded the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans. The Sewerage & Water Board had the responsibility of draining the city along with constructing a modern sewage and tap water system for the city, which, at the time, still relied heavily on cisterns and outhouses. (A different entity, the Orleans Levee Board, is in charge of supervision of the city's levee and floodwall system.)"

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

In a completely libertarian world new orleans wouldn't have existed because the govt wouldn't have built the levees. Some might say private industry would have built them.....private industry would have built dozens and dozens of miles of levees at a cost of billions to build a city below ground? Who would have invested in that? Doubtful.

I don't agree with this. There are plenty of cities and local governments that fund and build projects like this on their own. I think state or city would have picked it up eventually...maybe even did them right. (but probably not)

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

In a completely libertarian world new orleans wouldn't have existed because the govt wouldn't have built the levees. Some might say private industry would have built them.....private industry would have built dozens and dozens of miles of levees at a cost of billions to build a city below ground? Who would have invested in that? Doubtful.

levees needed to be built for the river channel to be operationable year round.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't agree with this. There are plenty of cities and local governments that fund and build projects like this on their own. I think state or city would have picked it up eventually...maybe even did them right. (but probably not)

problem is doing it right (capable of holding back a cat 5) is soo expensive that it might be cheaper just to allow the city to be destroyed once every 200 years and rebuild.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

A french company started it in 1718. Back then they put buildings on the natural levees. It was put there because of the huge economic benefits, which also shows that the "free market" will do something retarded like build a city on a flood basin if they can make a buck.

You make the "free market" sound like an entity in itself?


I would suggest that the people who did this as individuals knew some of the risk and took it. Should they not also be responcible for the consequence? Or should one generation after another use government to shore up a bad idea in the first place?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Maybe this would be best for another thread, but in a completely libertarian world, why do you think NO would have been different? There would've been no army to build the levees...do you think the private sector would have done it instead?

To answer your question, and this is only a guess.

Much smaller and less in the flood plane. And the attraction would have been just economic and not the social welfare system that created a huge poverty zone under the water line. Who thought of that?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You make the "free market" sound like an entity in itself?


I would suggest that the people who did this as individuals knew some of the risk and took it. Should they not also be responcible for the consequence? Or should one generation after another use government to shore up a bad idea in the first place?

They used local government funding for many years before calling on federal money. They felt the city was vital to control access to the mississippi.

[Thorgrim]

A lot more people would have died and a lot less people would have cared

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

A lot more people would have died and a lot less people would have cared

Nice to see you provide so much substance with this post. Care to explain why that is?

[Ardentfrost]

Private companies helped out quicker in NO than the gov't did. They would have probably helped out more if there was no "safety net," which is the main part that failed. For instance, remember how Wal-Mart said that if anything is needed by the people, just go in and take it. Then they sent truck after truck of supplies that they just gave away. Additionally, the Red Cross was there helping people before FEMA arrived, and when FEMA got there, they kicked them out. FEMA turned help away from NO that was coming in from private industry in a few cases.

There's no way anyone can say that there would have been more or less death had it been left up to private industry alone, but we CAN say that private industry was there before the government, and government kicked them out.

If the gov't safety net wasn't there, there'd be no one to blame except the city and the people themselves. We already know about the busses that weren't used to get people out of NO and stuff. The city should have been more on top of evac'ing people. Regardless, though, in the aftermath I think the evidence is there that private industry would have done better than FEMA since they were there faster, and have a less stringent budget (gov't tries to prepare depending on how much of a budget they have, whereas private industry can mobilize in a second based on donations from individuals and companies).

I'm not saying the city/state gov't shouldn't at least kinda prepare for the tragedies of nature they're prone to, I'm talking more about federal gov't "safety nets" that those governments and the citizens tend to rely on.

[Thorgrim]

Look at how amazingly successful FEMA was under Clinton, it had tons of bipartisan support as Clinton raised the position to cabinet level, while reforming and giving more power to the agency, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes were all dealt with in amazing time and no seriously offered a "private" solution that could match FEMA excellent record

Specifically, look up REPUBLICAN praise for FEMA's handling of the OKC bombing, LA earthquakes, and midwest floods

There is no way a private organization could be so integrated with the government, or command the resources that FEMA had...to be ready for terrorist attacks, natural disasters all the way from crushing quick earthquakes to long drawn out floods?

James Witt at FEMA was unmatchable, and any attempt to copy it by the private sector is a joke

As soon as Bush downgraded the department, put a crony in charge as it was a neglected and shrinking agency, did things turn out bad