Gary, that article seems to waffle between pro-free market and against it, until the very end. The point they’re missing is the question “should we be forced by threat of violence against our person, to help the people who have found themselves unprepared? Or should we be able to make voluntary choices to help those in need?”

Certainly the small government advocates believe we can save in the long run because this type of help is only needed once in a generation. By allowing voluntary contributions, people can give as much as they feel these people need it, and are not forced to choose between their own need to survive and another’s “need” to refurnish their vacation home. By forcing people to pay taxes into a FEMA department that does not seem prepared for these situations either, it seems like a waste. I’m sure Red Cross, and other aid-based enterprises will have benifits, for the victims and it will come down to private donations anyway. (remember Katrina?)

Also how does this support “big government” obviously building codes are not adequate enough to protect the people, in this instance. The article mentions the availability of infrastructure (emergency services, roads) is inadequate, but those are government controlled, so again it’s a failure of the government not the free market.

In the end, the link to this article seems to leave little doubt in my mind that smaller government with private response IS better, even though it seems it was trying to make a point for the other side of the argument.