Governments role during Natural Disasters

[Nith]

Not sure if this has been asked before, but with Sandy around, it brought up a question I've been trying to solve for a while. In true laissez faire capitalism, to what extent should the government be involved.

One example is Sandy. To what extent should the government be involved. Should it send the military and the police to help with recovery efforts, should emergency funds be released to help with recovery (then where do those funds come from). What if it was a bigger disaster, something that shook up the whole country, like the Earthquake in Japan. Is there room for a keynesian stimulus to provide a cash flow for recovery. What about an epidemic, should the government be providing emergency medical support.

Whenever trying to answer these, I end up with a dichotomy I haven't been able to resolve. Some of what I mentioned above does not sound like it would interfere with individual rights. However in each case there is a need to expand the government (e.g. some minimal public health care, or for a small role remaining for the central bank. Each one of these will lead to a bigger government eventually resulting in what we have today.

So I'm interested in what should be the extent of government involvement in a natural disaster, and more important from a philosophical why?

[Devil's Advocate]

The government's role is to act as a body guard; and one whose services may be declined. Remembering that government is force, and that the only justifiable use of force is self-defense, about the only appropriate use of government force in a natural disaster, is to apprehend and prosecute looters. Ideally, the Coast Guard and National Guard should provide security and logistical support for private and volunteer emergency responders to deliver aid and medical attention to victims of a natural disaster.

[Spiral Architect]

Great question!

I might add it would also be perfectly reasonable for the Government to send in the army a well during a true state of emergency, considering a voluntary army is defensive most of the soldiers should be close to home. Not only could they help with cleanup efforts, support for infrastructure, or even help get basic local governments (police/courts) back on line through providing temporary headquarters and power systems.

Also, don’t fall for the false alternative between government central planning and leaders just sitting around fiddling while Rome burned. A good leader would also get involved in a free country in many ways. As Commander in Chief of the Army is one example but he can also make a public address asking for volunteers to help with the cleanup, logistical support and shipment of supplies, or even local fund raising for charities that would help with the relief effort (like the Red Cross). The sign of a good leader is when they motivate someone do act voluntarily incidentally. When you think about it, Obama could do more for the victims of Sandy by getting the Government out of the way of the market price mechanism that will send resources streaming into the East Coast while at the same time going on TV and show real leadership by asking people (as in ask, not a guilt trip) to support groups involved.

Such things are historically proven to work. Every natural disaster sees a demand for materials that causes prices to rise (aka what critical call price gauging during an emergency) which encourages stock to flow to these areas and encourages people to do it since they will make more money. I know this since I’ve seen what happens to the price of freight and labor in trucking to troubled areas post Hurricanes. Toss in an appeal to American’s from a real leader that actually asks for volunteers by virtue of value based speeches and you have the hallmark of a recovery far superior to something ran by a bureaucracy that still hasn’t collected all of the temporary trailers sent to Katrina.

Think of it this way. Do you trust the spontaneous and naturally occurring automatic recalculation of prices from high demand to ship supplies to the millions who need it based on their own individual choices through voluntary agreement? Or do you trust hundreds of people who don’t even live there, who likely got their job appointed through political pull, who will dictate those millions of choices to the victims through central planning?

If you are in doubt, Google New Orleans housing efforts post Katrina. You’ll notice a vast difference between private volunteer efforts from celebrities and even Habitat for Humanity versus the Government reconstruction projects. Stossel did something on it once and it was brutal.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[JMeganSnow]

So I'm interested in what should be the extent of government involvement in a natural disaster, and more important from a philosophical why?

The government should perform all the functions it has under any other circumstances, namely, what is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. In philosophical terms there is no difference between the situation that pertains prior to the disaster and the one that pertains after it. You aren't suddenly living in a different metaphysical universe because there was a nasty storm, so why should the functions of government be any different?

Granted, more police or even military troops acting as police might be required to maintain order in the conditions left behind by a major disaster. But that's as far as it goes or should go. That's not to say that the police and troops can't pitch in to help with the cleanup, but it needs to be recognized that if they do so it falls outside the bounds of their official capacity and authority. So, should private citizens desire to chase them off or take over the task themselves, the police and troops are legally obligated to let them.

And, sure, there's no reason why the President, acting as a prominent private citizen, couldn't make announcements or encourage certain efforts. What he doesn't have the power to do is to issue edicts. The POTUS would have precisely as much legal authority over the cleanup as any other private citizen who was interested in helping.