I find this sort of argument very puzzling. So the conclusion we should draw from the failure of big government to take proper preventative actions in the case of New Orleans is...we need more big government? Somehow it doesn't seem quite plausible. And it's worth pointing out that on libertarian principles government money should be spent on (1) necessary essentials to protect the survival and rights of citizens; and (2) adjudication of apparent conflicts in rights. It really does seem that something like a flood wall would fall under (1), while most of the demands on government money that outcompeted issues like flood walls (for many, many years, regardless of whether taxes were cut or not) would not fall under either (1) or (2). The primary constraint libertarianism, as such, puts on government action is one of justification: the government must justify its action as necessary. Hey, wait, that sounds almost like something that would be implied by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which limit federal government action along those lines; obviously it must be crazy.
My point here is not to defend libertarianism (I am not a libertarian, despite some sympathies); nor is it to deny that some libertarians are insane (is there a political party without insane people?). Rather, it's just that this seems a weird argument. Flood walls are something relatively easy to justify on libertarian principles, in a way that (say) a war in Iraq is not. Actually, the catastrophe is a good reason to say that libertarians are right on one thing, at least: government needs to put essentials first. Libertarians go further and say that it needs to focus on essentials only, with which one may disagree; but they are certainly right about putting essentials first. Building a bigger government that continues to have bad priorities would be an utterly insane response.
