Librarians, Keepers of the Liberty

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

... victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); ...

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

people who choose to live on your block should toss you a frisbee and perhaps ypu'd miss it and it would gently tap your head and knock some sense, or better yet, courage. into you.

We can always hope.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

You may not name-call like some posters, but you sure know how to throw a backhanded insult like the first line.

Of course I've looked at it that way. I just completely disagree. I would actually, sincerely, like to engage in a deeper discussion, but I am woefully behind on my workload, so I'll just make a few quick points.

One nitpick: Sure, people can choose wherever they want to live. WHETHER they can afford to live wherever they like is another question. I can't afford rent in a lot of cities where I'd like to live.

Second: there aren't too many places in the country that aren't prone to one sort of disaster or another, so I question whether anyone can actually be more "prudent" than another.

Third: Katrina wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill disaster. Does it somehow make our government better or more noble if it considers the plight of so many now-homeless individuals and decides not to act because they shoulda bought homeowner's insurance?

I could never share your outlook on life. Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.

Individual Americans should be free to use their money in any way they choose ... including donating it to others whom they deem worthy of those donations ... even if they're "deadbeats" ... but ...

... it's an outrage for the government to confiscate money from Citizen A and hand it over to Citizen B ... for any reason whatsoever.

Private voluntary donations are fine and dandy ... government confiscation and allocation isn't.