Skip directly to content

Damaging Winds of Government

Arthur Thomas's picture
on Wed, 06/05/2013 - 04:20
The Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency isn't exactly a hot political topic, but it is a great example of government failure.
 
TWIA is an agency to subsidize insurance for areas along the Texas coast, that would have higher insurance premiums because of weather damage. The idea is to 'protect consumers' and make areas more affordable and accessible to more people without a high cost of living driving them away. 
 
To any free market person out there the problems are obvious. Markets put pressure  on prices in areas for a reason. Insurance premiums are high because the cost of damages are high. This is a market indicator that living in the area is more dangerous and more costly. Subsidization in this case removes market pressures and the indicators people have to make wise market choices. TWIA, as any reasonable person would figure, is now unable to pay off future claims without more money being dumped into it. This means taxpayers across the state get to pay for people making bad market decisions based on government subsidies. 

The government has actually given consumers incentive to make a poor choice that cost us all. Further this encourages development in an area that should not be developed without acknowledging market risks. These further developments mean even more people move into an area and take advantage of these subsidies which compounds the problem. Not only is the government setting up an initial failure in policy but a growing failure that will cost more and more as it encourages people to keep making bad decisions.
 
As a libertarians, though, what is most annoying isn't the market problem but the massive moral issue here. The government is putting peoples lives at risk by removing the pressures that would encourage them make other choices about where to build and live. This has absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with responsible decision making based on environmental factors. Government struck at the heart of this by taking away risk. It doesn't remove the physical threat, the weather, but it removed the downstream effects the weather causes. This increased risk is important in the decision making process but the government hides it through immoral action. It makes all Texas taxpayers hide risk so that consumers will find it easier to make a poor choice. 

This is very dangerous. How is it moral to make me fund someone else's danger? Not only have I been robbed  but I am now tangentially related to someone else's potential death? Me funding this somehow fits under a better and more just world? It is the height of arrogant immorality to me. People should be fully aware of the risks involved and take the full burden of the responsibility when facing those risks. This places the financial and moral burden fully upon anyone that wants to invest or live in a more risky area. 
 
I am saddened that I am forced to pay for potential future death under the guise of 'consumer protection'. How about protecting my choices in what I fund *(and protection through market risk in decision making for consumers? ) this is confusing to me. Make it a separate sentence and  and re write  for clarity??
 
This is what is meant when they say that the pathway to hell was paved with good intentions. Unfortunately in this case the cost isn't only money but potentially blood. Shame on the false morality and the most evil results of good intentions for anyone that supports such a system.

Post new comment