Hurricanes, politics and other natural disasters

Hurricane Irene dominated headlines this weekend. News websites exploded with information, and questions about the hurricane abounded.

Should I evacuate? What kind of supplies do I need? Do we really need a National Weather Service?
Wait, what was that last one? 

It happens to be the very serious question proposed by two opinion columnists for Fox News. As the headline would lead you to believe, the columnists think the NWS has outlived its usefulness.

More importantly, they argue that the private sector will adapt to serve all of the functions the NWS currently provides, mainly warning citizens of impending danger.

There are television stations, smart phone apps and websites individuals can access on their own that, according to the authors, can provide faster and more accurate information.

All right, I can follow this thinking, but I’m left with a burning question: What motivates the private sector to provide these services?

Profit. Cold, hard cash drives the private sector, and occasionally public interest, if it falls in line with making a profit.

So if I, John Q. Public, wanted to be kept abreast of weather or warned when there is impending weather danger, I would likely need to pay somebody for this service.

After all, as I’m sure the Fox columnists of the editorial would agree, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

In this scenario, I give the company a yearly fee, and it sends me a text message when
I need to know something about the weather.

That works well for me, but what about the people who choose not to pay for this service, or worse, those who are unable to do so? Are they left out in the cold? Do we hope they’ve had meteorology training? Do we write it off as a necessary consequence of social Darwinism?

This scenario is eerily similar to what might happen if the U.S. privatizes other protective services such as the fire or police departments. 

In this setup, if I want the firehouse to respond to my calls when my house is ablaze, I need to pay a fee. If I want the police to protect my person and property, I pay them.
If I want better protection, I opt for the better plan. I’ll take the four fire truck preferred service and SWAT team coverage for my McMansion, please. 

Those at the bottom get a garden hose, a ten-gallon bucket and a can of pepper spray. If you can’t pay at all, you’d better invest in sprinkler and security systems with the money you still don’t have.

As much as the libertarian every-man-for-himself approach appeals to our egos, we have a greater responsibility to one another. The government should have a vested stake in protecting individuals, especially those who are unable to fend for themselves. 

I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking on budget slashing, but as a taxpayer, I really don’t mind paying to have my television or radio ‘hijacked,’ as the Fox columnists put it, to let me know that I might be in serious danger. In fact, I think I prefer it. 

There is a useful role for government beyond the sole function of national security, and there are things I don’t want private industry handling alone. Warning people of imminent danger from the weather is one of them.

­— jontodd@indiana.edu