A fine article.

Brad Edmonds writes:
“No one can stop a hurricane, nor affect its strength.”
While the first part of this sentence is true, the second part may not be. Real-life weather manipulation on a small scale is DECADES old (i.e. cloud seeding). For a look at the potential for hurricane manipulation in modern times, see this article on Ben Livingston: http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15274636&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475591&rfi=6
Of course, if the government COULD slow a hurricane and/or minimize its damage, one has to ask “Why would it do so?”.
As Randolf Bourne said, “War is the health of the State.” It might be more accurate to say that “DISATER is the health of the State.”

Brad Edmonds wrote:

“No one can stop a hurricane, nor affect its strength.”

BillG responds:

the case is scientifically being made that negative externalities from human behavior ARE indeed affecting its strength

Jiggs wrote:

“The case for it is anything but “scientifically made.”"

BillG responds:

not “scientifically made” (as in conclusive)

is scientifically BEING made (as in proceeding towards conclusion)

Insurance have the most to gain out of funding the protection of life and property. If a private army prevents, or stops an attack, that means not having to pay out in a policy.

“Insurers compete for good risks, they don’t assume bad risks and fund armies to make them good risks. Insurers will charge a premium based on whether or not you’ve hired an on-site security guard. They won’t hire you an on-site security guard.”

I think you make a good point. However, we are talking about the future in a free-market society, so current standards do not necessarily apply.
If an insurance company can make a profit by creating its own police force, then it may very well do so.
Of course, I don’t think that insurance companies will *necessarily* have their own armies and/or police forces. But the quality control that they could exert in this case may be enough of a factor to allow for this very situation to arise. (i.e. if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself).
Currently, the state monopoly on “protection” does not allow for these types of innovations to arise.

Or the private levee company might have gone bankrupt and the homes still destroyed without recourse.

There is an assumption that if it would cost X to build safe levees, and that the government would not pay X, but only a lesser amount, then the market would “pay” X and include interest, insurance and everything else. And that after paying X, you would get safe levees instead of substandard ones which merely appeared safe but would fail in a Cat 4 hurricane (with the construction company moving on to a country without an extradition treaty). No one ever commits fraud ever?

Actually the levees would never have been built since geometry and property rights would have allowed a single hold-out to prevent the construction of a useful levee, and there would likely have been at least one who didn’t care about flooding, valued direct access to the river more, or had a less than rational reason (at least from a market standpoint, e.g. a cemetary or burial ground) for not allowing construction.

And people are stupid. That section would have been settled after one generation without flooding because people reason based on personal and practical data more than projections and prophesy. You don’t think you will be in the generation that sees the 100 year flood, much less the 10,000 year flood.

Look at Florida. The Atlantic has a Decadal cycle. We get lots of really bad hurricanes for about 30 years, then almost none. The original florida land boom (in Marxian terms – Groucho that is – you can even get stucco – boy can you get stucco!) came to an end with a really destructive hurricane, then there was the current record low pressure that destroyed the railroad that went to key-west in 1935. No one wanted to build through the late ’50s because they remembered all the destruction from the hurricanes while they were growing up – FL was disasterland. By the mid ’90s things were reversed. The hurricanes are getting worse building to the peak but everyone was older so only remembered back to the mid-50s which had few hurricanes.

Many “solutions” assume near omniscience when it is almost impossible to get the typical American to read about what their Grandparents experienced so they can avoid repeating that disaster (like the 20′s credit expansion, real-estate and stock market crash, etc., but just buy GOOG at market and use the proceeds to buy new houses with ARMs and don’t worry, be happy, it’s a new era).

I will point out that people tend to make things worse as the market has limited power and tends to act slower and reward prudence and will quickly show it isn’t a magic genie – whereas the people will want things done faster and use government as the magic genie. Most things the market isn’t really good at, the government is far worse at. I say this to be clear that I’m not endorsing government power, but to destroy the illusion that the market, private property, or whatever is a panacea and will create Utopia – the market can’t even limit government.

If all property in Iraq were private … In one sense all property was, but was owned by someone named Saddam Hussein (does anyone even think that he could not claim ownership against every square inch – any other titles or claims were simply invalid). He would allow others to lease the properties and maintain things. Can anyone explain to me any flaw with the idea of Saddam as singular private property owner? (other than that his claim might have been invalid – for this question assume he WAS the owner). There was no “government” in that sense, just a property owner doing what he wanted on his land.

If all property in the US was private, but some US citizens were still beligerent and expressed themselves directly instead of through government proxy, how would the injured get compensation (e.g. could Palestinians injured by US made arms sold to Israel sue? Or Israelis who had family members killed by a suicide bomber financed by a US based nonprofit?). If justice was not sure and swift, at some point one of the aggrieved might do something just as direct like run a plane into the building where the insurance, non-profit, arms-dealer, whatever was based.

Reactionary-

I guess my statement would read best like this, “”Currently, the state monopoly on ‘protection’ puts a serious damper on these types of innovations.”

tz-

People may be stupid and have short memories, but insurance companies are less likely to share these qualities (especially if these insurance companies don’t have any government safety nets). And if the people want to build in areas that have a history of flooding, they will have a difficult time procuring insurance.
Also, the free-market tends to find creative solutions, while the government rarely innovates. Perhaps the levee problem could be avoided by building houses on stilts like they do on the coast of Maine, for example.

you say “..no insurer could ever have an incentive to destroy property, whether its own or anyone else’s..”
But if the property is not insured by any insurer, won’t it be to the insurer’s advantage to engineer an accident!! on the property. The insurer won’t have to pay out..and it would motivate those remaning without insurance to get more insurance..
accidents would be good for the insurance business, would it not?