Monday, September 05, 2005

Cogent Analysis of Katrina

The most cogent analysis of the government reaction to Katrina is coming out of Don Boudreax at Cafe Hayek.

I understand that the devastation spread by Katrina makes even the most ordinary daily tasks difficult or even impossible to do. There may be good, if regrettable, reasons for why FEMA is taking so long to get water and food to the refugees, and for why there’s too little police presence in the Convention Center. Maybe. But damn it, isn’t it time people reject as a cruel hoax the notion that government possesses superhuman powers and is motivated by angelic intentions? That it can do things that non-political institutions cannot do?
Who can still believe that, when the chips are down and there’s no one left to count on, people can count on their government for basic help?
Katrina, in addition to stripping my hometown of life, unmasked the pretenses of government as savior.

Sept 1 : Cafe Hayek

on Sept. 3, he alerts us to the fact that the government is LOCKING OUT the Red Cross and Salvation Army, because according to the Red Cross:

Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.

Boudreaux, as usual, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Judging from the Red Cross's explanation (above), government apparently feared that the Red Cross would deliver relief with too much success. Why else would people choose not to leave a destroyed city, and even want to return to it?

So, government decided that letting people die was a better course than risking any success that the Red Cross would likely have at providing disaster relief.

It appears that politician's desire to keep the people helpless and dependent on government transcends basic domestic issues like healthcare and welfare, and extends to discouraging competition from private organizations in times like these. Warms the heart, no?

Well, given the evidence of the government's ineptitude and indeed its acting as an obstacle to progress here's my advice.

Get your own gun, your own food stash, and keep a couple bottles of water, cause if you gots to rely on a pack of baby kissers for your continued existence you're screwed. Period.


Blogger lumberjack said...

You think a red-cross armband keeps you safe while swimming in toxic waste and sewage? Maybe, just maybe, the idea was to get the humans OUT of the ravaged area. "Stay here and we'll bring the victims to you" doesn't sound like an insane plan to me.

10:35 AM  
Blogger rox_publius said...

Fair enough, I suppose, if that were what took place. But it isn't. Fact is people were trapped - stationary - for days, and the people that could help them were prevented from doing so. Was there a risk? Probably, yeah. But that should be the decision of those involved to take upon themselves.

Look, given the level of incompetence displayed here I am completely unwilling to defer to the better judgement of the governmental authorities. They've lost the benefit of the doubt.

11:33 AM  
Blogger lumberjack said...

Change your mind now that it looks like the state government was responsible for keeping them out? I haven't really. It was a decision that was made when the locals still thought they could get the people out. Turns out they were wrong. But I can still see the reasoning behind it. At that time they didn't expect the levees to break.
(I think that the flooding hadn't happened yet when they made this decision. It's hard to know, what with all the get-Bush fever out there. All the facts may not be known for a while yet.)

11:12 AM  
Blogger rox_publius said...

Change my mind? No! Incompetant beaucrats couldn't do anything so they elected to prevent those who could from doing. Government hates competition. The control freaks need to be in control - even if that means people die.

1:41 PM  
Blogger lumberjack said...

The control freaks need to be in control - even if that means people die.

OK, I'll agree with that.
Let's hope we learn from our mistakes.

5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home