Libertarians in Fox Holes
They say there are no atheists in foxholes, and no libertarians in a crisis. This was the first thing that came to mind when I learned that Ron Paul’s congressional district was directly in the path of Hurricane Ike. In a press release Paul’s office said his “utmost priority” is helping Hurricane Ike victims get help, apparently focusing primarily on government help through FEMA and other similar agencies. Here’s part of the release:
The congressman’s office is acting as a liaison between federal agencies and constituents to ensure that available assistance is as accessible as possible, and that FEMA and other government agency activities are appropriate, efficient and helpful to Texans. In addition, Congressman Paul’s office seeks to ensure that private aid organizations are also allowed to help.
I don’t fault Paul for working to get help for his constituents affected by the tragedy, but we should recognize that his current actions in the wake of Ike are seemingly contradictory to his previous outspoken stances. Here is video of Paul on 20/20 speaking with John Stossel about his opposition to FEMA and the problems FEMA causes.
Update: In the comments, some of our readers have argued that opposing FEMA assistance, while simultaneously seeking to maximize such assistance, is not contradictory. I think it’s worth pointing out a video clip of Ron Paul’s own defense of this charge when he appeared on Tim Russert’s show (here’s the entire show). I think the defense is compelling, but this situation with FEMA is far different than driving on public roads or using public libraries. With those, one is using what is already present and available. Following the latest Ike tragedies, Paul is actively seeking to maximize FEMA dollars to his district. In other words, opposing your neighborhood library while using it is one thing, but opposing your neighborhood library while actively seeking more allocated tax dollars for it is another thing entirely. To reiterate, though, Paul has eloquently defended such actions in the past, and I wanted to point out his defense here.
9 Responses to “Libertarians in Fox Holes”
There’s a huge difference between being opposed to FEMA and knowing the problems that it causes and rejecting its help in a system where it predominates.
You can be a libertarian without giving up the protections of the state that you might think would be better provided for through market mechanisms.
His actions are contradictory because the actual world that he lives in is in many ways contradictory to his ideal. The vast majority of people deal with this contradiction on a daily basis, and the conflict between ideal and actual is so commonplace that I would ask for your motivations in pointing it out in this particular regard.
For the first time, I agree with CJ (except for that last bit about questioning Josh’s motivation for this post).
Even though Paul would like to abolish FEMA, it still exists and his constituents have paid into the system with their taxes. Now that they are in a position to benefit from FEMA, it’s only fair that they get some of the aid they’ve helped pay for.
Imagine that I, as a homeowner, resent being forced by my mortgage company to carry homeowner’s insurance. If my house burns down, I’m still going to file a claim.
By the way, I’d like to see the federal government designate storm and flood-prone areas in which new construction and significant improvements would not be eligible for government aid in the event of a storm or a flood. Existing structures would be grandfathered in, but once they are destroyed any rebuilt structures would be treated like new construction. This would discourage people from building in vulnerable areas, and would keep taxpayers from having to constantly bail out people who do decide to build in such areas.
I’m not “questioning his motivations” in the sense that I’m implying they’re bad, I’m just asking what is important enough about a libertarian excepting FEMA help to have written about it. Sometimes a question can be asked with no ulterior motives
Ron Paul drives on roads, pays social security taxes, and participates in the government in many other ways deemed coercive by libertarians, so I’m just asking, in general, what the point is.
Josh, I agree with the others and really don’t see an issue here. Do you expect Ron Paul to say “sorry consitutents (and voters), I will not help you receive any help from FEMA, who is perfectly willing to provide this help, because I am idealogically opposed to this organization”.
That would be a tough sell for a man running for office in less than two months.
In theory, libertarianism works great in practice.
On your update, you state that, “some of our readers have argued that opposing FEMA assistance, while simultaneously seeking to maximize such assistance, is not contradictory.”
Could you please point that out, as it doesn’t seem present, and I would like to keep you on point when making statements. It’s the role of the gadfly that I enjoy.
I think that the only argument present is that the actions were contradictory, but that life is, in and of itself, contradictory.
I do not think that Ron Paul paying Social Security taxes contradicts the libertarian belief that taxes for Social Security are unjustly coercive — he does not want to go to jail for failing to pay them. It does not benefit him to pay those taxes, other than in that he is permitted to work in this country and in that he does not go to jail.
The road issue is slightly more complicated, and I do not know what Ron Paul has to say about that, but I think it is a fairly unremarkable corollary of the idea of private property rights — if parcels of land are to be controlled exclusively by individuals, the system that arranges for this to be so should also arrange for people to be able to move between those parcels, or it would be a system of locking people into pieces of land.
In theory, libertarianism works great in practice.
Many libertarians, though I do not know how many, would agree that libertarianism would enjoy greater success if its implementation as public policy did not depend on the approval of voters who can be bought.