As of Thursday evening, the latest reports indicate that, with the port facilities of Port-au-Prince largely destroyed, relief supplies can enter Haiti only through the relatively unscathed airport, which reportedly is overwhelmed. With the critical third day since the earthquake now upon us, one can only agree with the sentiment expressed Thursday morning by the Wall Street Journal editorial board in its Review & Outlook feature (“Haiti’s Tragedy”), wishing “godspeed to the armies of relief headed for Haiti’s desperate shore.”
Under the circumstances, it might seem petty to take too much of a nitpicking approach to the paper’s commentary. Nevertheless, in polemics, everything is grist for the mill, and there is an important point to be made with scrutiny of the following sentences from this editorial, which, I would argue, carries just the slightest tincture of ideology: “The earthquake is also a reminder that while natural calamities do not discriminate between rich countries and poor ones, their effects almost invariably do…. The difference is a function of a wealth-generating and law-abiding society that can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.”
Indeed, the unfolding catastrophe in Haiti exceeds that of Hurricane Katrina by at least one level of magnitude — because that latter tragedy befell a relatively poor city in what nevertheless is a rich country. Therefore, New Orleans could afford “the expense of proper building codes.”
There are two ways of looking at “the expense of proper building codes.” The editorial board prefers to look at them as a function of “a wealth-generating and law-abiding society” that permits entrepreneurship, so that we can become rich and afford building codes. Thank God for the entrepreneurs! Without them we might be inhabiting something like the shantyowns of Port-au-Prince.
The second way of looking at the matter would be to remind ourselves that building codes are a restriction. They are a limitation. They are a violation of the strict rules of laissez-faire. If we did not have them, wouldn’t there be ideologues at hand to tell us that we absolutely must not enact them, lest we ruin everything? Might not the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Manhattan Institute be pumping out learned papers to that effect? (”Zoning? But in Houston they don’t have zoning, and look how fast they’re growing!” Maybe they have zoning in Houston by now — but, you get the point.)
Entrepreneurship and the development of the corporation were necessary for the sake of economic development. As thinkers like Hayek established so insistently, they had to be given a measure of independence, since economic knowledge necessarily is dispersed. However, we gave them that independence for the sake of the benefits it would yield — not for its own sake. Beyond a certain point, we cannot garner the fruits of economic development without the introduction of restrictions, taxes, and subsidies. Otherwise we might forever remain in something like the condition of an undeveloped frontier — or a shantytown, such as we might find in the absence of building codes….