U.S. Largess vs. Canadian Cruelty

The best approach to floods is freedom and responsibility.

By Walter E. Block

One typically thinks of Canada as a “kinder, gentler” nation than the U.S. This doesn’t mean that our neighbor to the north consists of a bunch of sissies. The mere mention of “hockey” and the participation of that country’s armed forces in the two world wars will soon put paid to any such notion. On the other hand, the Canadian military, with but only a few exceptions, is pretty much nowadays limited to focusing on its own territory. The U.S., on contrast, now engages in a more forceful foreign policy.

            But on one issue at least, the Canadians far outstrip the Americans in terms of the utilization of force, at least against their own citizenry: flood policy. Dorian was an equal opportunity tempest, at least in terms of spreading its wings amongst the two countries. Yes, eastern North Carolina was pulverized by this hurricane, but so were parts of eastern Canada, including the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia and the province of Prince Edward Island.

            Here is where the two countries’ public policy parted company in the aftermath of this storm. North of our border, the government adopted a harsh policy: forceful buyouts. Hundreds of homeowners were explicitly ordered to go live somewhere else. The public treasury would help them get settled, elsewhere, but move they must. No ands, ifs or buts about it. For example, in Gatineau, a city near Ottawa which has suffered not one but two serious floods in the last two years, people were told that if their damages amounted to 50% or more of the value of their homes, they must pick up stakes and depart.

            South of the border, the policy was pretty much located at the very opposite end of the spectrum. For example, Ocracoke Island in the Outer Banks of North Carolina has suffered three floods due to weather conflagrations in the last four years.  Have home owners there been compelled by government to relocate? Not a bit of it. The very opposite is true. Instead, the state has offered them funds to stay put and rebuild.

            It is time to reject both of these extremes, and consider a more moderate position, located halfway between the U.S. and Canadian policy. It is one of laissez faire capitalism. Treat people as adults. Allow them to undertake whatever flooding risks they desire, but on their own nickel. They should be free to build wherever they want, but not receive a dime in compensation for rebuilding from the public treasury. So much for U.S. policy.

But the same applies to the Canadians? Why compel people to move from areas they love (some of the flood-prone areas are prime real estate, apart from these difficulties)? Let them stay where they are, at their own risk.

            Those who support the Canadian policy will object on the ground that ill-advised building locations impose a cost on the rest of society, in terms of armies, police, firemen, ambulances, which will necessarily be employed in the advent of serious danger. No, this policy is not engraved in stone. It can be changed. All the government need do is announce, and stick to this policy, that those who locate in these dangerous areas are entirely on their own. Why treat these people as children? If they are so stupid as to require forcible removal, why allow them to vote? And, if they are given the right to the ballot box, this implies they are not as child-like as present Canadian policy implies. Compelling homeowners to vacate their property, indeed. What kind of freedom is that?

            As for the Americans, it simply makes no sense to throw other people’s good hard-earned tax money after a will ‘o the wisp. It is particularly galling to many that most of the recipients of this largesse are not exactly to be found in the lowest decile of the income or wealth distribution.

            The policies of both countries are foolish and ought to be disbanded. We need a free enterprise policy in both nations.

First appeared on the The Wall Street Journal.