Brandon has a good post on the now-common argument that the disaster in New Orleans has somehow discredited libertarianism. I’ve actually read people who say that this shows the bankruptcy of the concept of “limited government.” Should we assume such people are for unlimited government?
The problem with the handling of this situation, in my view, has a lot more to do with venality and incompetence than with excessive devotion to the principles of Locke and Jefferson.
I agree that saying that the Katrina catastophe has discredited the idea of limited government is a little bit of a stretch, but I think what it DOES deal a blow to is this sort of populist anarchist polemic in Blogistan and the media that governments always make things worse and that people are much more productive with no government or very very very limited government. Clearly better organization (coupled with better leadership) would have much better served people in LA and MS. One would be hard-pressed to say that the problem was that the government response to Katrina failed because there wasn’t enough federalism or the state and federal govenments were too organized, although I’m sure some have.
Yeah – I think that a corollary of any defensible notion of limited government is that there are things that governments should do, and do well. It’s irresponsible to just write off all government action as bad or counterproductive. You’re right that a lot of conservative and libertarian rhetoric falls into that trap. I think it’s helpful to remember that Paul calls the civil authority “God’s servant for your good” which seems to imply that it has a positive role to play. (I also think there’s a strain of Christian thought that sees the government in a purely negative light contrasted with the church, whereas from my point of view, the church and the state have different tasks to perform.)
that point of view was Luther’s and Augustine’s as well.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a comment