Setting aside the audacity required to establish a namesake charity designed to teach children exclusively one brand of economic thought (ad hominem fallacy, as you say)... At a fundamental level, we're talking about leveraging someone's severe misfortune for profit. Even Texas has anti-gouging laws that were fairly well enforced in the wake of Harvey. So it seems like a relatively extremist argument to say "Hey, free market, amirite?" as an attempt to justify unbridled human greed. The only negative consequences that I can think of are the cost of enforcing anti-gouging laws and the cost of government assistance programs designed to boost the influx of resources into areas of suffering people. But the majority of Americans, including me, have decided that we'll foot that bill. Now, FEMA flood insurance on the other hand, ehhhhhh, I'm not so sure that we should keep on writing those contracts so willy nilly, but that's effectively another can of worms.