Librarians, Keepers of the Liberty

[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.