predicatable natural disasters and rewards for stupidity

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I personal do not think people who purposely build or buy in a predicatble natuarl disaster area should be paid one cent by any government when natural disaster comes and destroys thier property. If they can get an insurance company before the disaster to insure them they can pay the damages.

But if a person is stupid enough to build in a posiible or known flood plain and a flood occurs and destroys thier stuff, tough luck no compensation from the government.

Likewise, if a person is stupid enough to build in a known tornado plain. Tough noogies.

Also the same on an earthquake fault, volcano outreach, i do not believe that a governement should have to give people stupid enough to build in such places a cent for thier stupidity.

What do you all think, if a person builds ina place known to be a natural disastor area?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Well you just described most of the earth. Where I live near Seattle suffers from the following predictable problems: earthquakes, volcanoes, wind storms, floods, tsunamis, and forest fires to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Do I think the government should compensate people for damage to their property/etc. due to such disasters if they live in such an area? No. But then I don't believe the government should compensate anybody for any kind of disaster period - unless the government itself is directly responsible - such as the dam the government designed and built had a flaw in its design and lets go, flooding an area.

Unless the government is responsible, why should it compensate anybody for something that it isn't responsible for? The government isn't a charity and it isn't an insurance company.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Unless the government is responsible, why should it compensate anybody for something that it isn't responsible for? The government isn't a charity and it isn't an insurance company.

My thoughts exactly, I guess What has gotten my mind on this is all these disaster relief programs going on in canada and the states this year.

 

[Saint Peter]

YEAH!

And fuck the Red Cross as well. Why hand out water and blankets to low lifes that did not plan for the unthinkable.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Unless the government is responsible, why should it compensate anybody for something that it isn't responsible for? The government isn't a charity and it isn't an insurance company.

The counter argument to the position taken here is that the cost to society if government does not step in to alleviate the damages caused, be it by nature or otherwise is higher than if the government does step in.


How is your position effected by services rendered by fire departments for example. Surely, it is an act of compensation, at least indirectly. And it is not paid for by the individual whose house is saved, it is paid for by society as a whole.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

YEAH!

And fuck the Red Cross as well. Why hand out water and blankets to low lifes that did not plan for the unthinkable.

I am not against relief orgs, but that is not the purpose of government. The difference being that people have a choice whether to contribute time and money to a relief org. whereas they do not have that choice with government; they have to pay taxes. FWIW, I contributed/dedicated 4 years of my life at barely subsistance levels of compensation rescuing people full time (70-80 hours a week) from self-induced and natural disasters.

 

[takingchances42]

Unless the government is responsible, why should it compensate anybody for something that it isn't responsible for? The government isn't a charity and it isn't an insurance company.

I completely agree. But, it is politically popular for politicians to want to appear that they are "doing something" about predictable disasters that effect hundreds or thousands of people. If your house only burns down and you don't have insurance, your tough luck. If your uninsured house is one of hundreds to burn down, and there is sufficient media coverage, then you are "entitled" to compensation is how it works.

My biggest problem is the people who build the expensive houses on barrier islands, and get paid to rebuild by the government every ten years when a hurricane strikes. Stupid.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

The counter argument to the position taken here is that the cost to society if government does not step in to alleviate the damages caused, be it by nature or otherwise is higher than if the government does step in.

Ultimately, the cost to society probably would not be any more than it would if the government "stepped in" - or it would be comparable. First, most government relief programs are not that extensive, insurance carrying most of the load. Second, the other costs to society are that society begins relying on government relief for everything and looking on government as its mother. Had a bad crop year? Look to the government for a crop subsidy. Got bad health? Look to the government for health care. Your company went out of business, economy in a slump? Look to the government for training compensation. Worried about retirement? Don't worry, Social Security is there for you - well, okay, maybe it will be there, maybe it won't (don't you wish you could invest that 15% of your income for yourself?)

So what you say? What harm is there in that? Well it makes people dependent instead of independent. Independence good, dependence bad. Also, these programs grow and grow until they get out of control, the cost of adminsitration is high, distribution unwieldy, uneven and subject to arcane rules (ever try applying for said benefits? try it some time - it is an interesting case study in cognitive dissonance). Finally, pols use the programs to buy votes, lobbyists and bureaucrats use them to wield power, and they just generally corrupt the fabric of society. What is the cost of social programs? Ask the victims of the "war on poverty" - you will find them in the inner cities.

How is your position effected by services rendered by fire departments for example. Surely, it is an act of compensation, at least indirectly. And it is not paid for by the individual whose house is saved, it is paid for by society as a whole.

Fire protection/fighting is a valid community service that can be provided by the government - or not (many small communities have a volunteer fire fighting department that is funded directly by community contributions rather than through taxes). Moreover, fire fighting is not an act of compensation after the fact, but rather a community service - there is a difference.

It is in the communities interest to prevent a fire from spreading beyond its starting point - as fires are often wont to do. I would be amenable to charging a fee to a property owner for time and materials spent fighting fires on properties, come to think of it, such a system would probably cut down on arson for insurance money and might induce building owners into a higher compliance rate with fire codes, maybe even extra measures of fire protection.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

I am not against relief orgs, but that is not the purpose of government. The difference being that people have a choice whether to contribute time and money to a relief org. whereas they do not have that choice with government; they have to pay taxes. FWIW, I contributed/dedicated 4 years of my life at barely subsistance levels of compensation rescuing people full time (70-80 hours a week) from self-induced and natural disasters.

What do you believe IS the purpose of gvoernment?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

What do you believe IS the purpose of gvoernment?

To understand the proper role of government, you must go back to the first purpose people formed governments - group force. in fact, this is why people (and animals) formed societies; safety in numbers. Sure they also formed societies for sharing of resources and eventually to provide for specialization of labor, but the primary reason was that their numbers acted as a force multiplier. Most poly sci profs will tell you, that at its most fundamental level, government is force.

People wanted protection from other individuals or groups who would steal their food and women, and who would harm them or their families. At its most fundamental level, this is what government is for; the protection of our Natural Rights. The most fundamental Natural Right is our right to life - others may not take our lives, or the lives of our family from us as long as we do not threaten their lives.

We also have other Natural Rights, such as the right to own property (real estate, durable goods, food, etc.) - if someone takes our property from us, we may starve, be exposed to the elements, or otherwise be in danger for our lives - which goes back to Natural Right #1.

This is what government does for us; it protects our Natural Rights. Beyond that not much else is a valid exercise of governmental power, which as described above, is force. Just about everything I consider a valid role for government extends from this principle, all that I do not consider valid does not.

 

[juicylips]

I have nothing to contribute.

Just stopping in to say hi to Todd. I don't do that enough.

JL

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

If government relief is not that extensive, then what is the problem? The private sector is carrying the load as you advocate.

Some of your examples, such as those involving crops were designed under a policy of food self sufficiency. Keeping this country's food supply under domestic control certainly makes sense. Farmers who may fail due to a bad crop year might sell out due to necessity. Its pretty hard to grow wheat under a strip mall or housing development. Of course, when the shelves are empty, we can blame the government for being short sighted.

Worried about retirement? Gee, lets go back to the pre-social-security days of the Great Depression. Would I like to have my money invested on my own? Sounds good until I put it into a tech stock or Enron/KMart. Or the market tanks because some CEO of a major corporation is getting compensated by stock options and cooks the books. Of course there is no cost to society by my starving or living under a bridge now is there? Well, maybe the costs to remove my corpse from your front lawn. Or maybe your corpse if I get the drop on you while burglarizing your home or robbing your business because I am hungry.

Independance. Hooray! Every problem will be solved if we just go back to buckskin and flintlocks.

Yes there have been massive failures, and yes there is inefficiency that needs to be dealt with. Of course we can streamline procedures. "Sorry Mr. Rosevillecaguy. We thought that the person who showed up here twenty minutes ago with your id ws you. gave him all the money in your account" Too bad so sad.

A simplistic answer or rant does not solve the problem. While I am not a fan of politicos as they are rat bastards whose job security depends on telling you what you want to hear, I sure as hell am unwilling to put all my faith in the Ken Lays, Donald Trumps, Exxons, McDonalds, ect of the world.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

If government relief is not that extensive, then what is the problem? The private sector is carrying the load as you advocate.

A number of problems. I said it was not extensive, I didn't say it was not expensive, it is. It is also not efficient, and it is forced; it violates our right to property.

Some of your examples, such as those involving crops were designed under a policy of food self sufficiency. Keeping this country's food supply under domestic control certainly makes sense. Farmers who may fail due to a bad crop year might sell out due to necessity. Its pretty hard to grow wheat under a strip mall or housing development. Of course, when the shelves are empty, we can blame the government for being short sighted.

As a fourth generation farmer whose family's farms were just sold, yet are still porducing crops, I can say this bovine fecal matter (also known on our farm as bullshit). Crop and livestock subsidies are essentially corporate giveaways.

For decades we have had more than enough food to feed ourselves and many others. One reason we have crop subsidies is because most farmers, while being decent farmers, are very poor businessmen. They see their neighbor making a killing selling red wheat, so everybody and their dogs plants red wheat the next year. There is an overabundance of red wheat and the market falls out from under the farmers. They then scream for crop subsidies - which are mostly about preventing farmers from growing more too much of a crop, than about getting them to grow more. Why is the family farm dissapearing and the corporation farm replacing them? Because corporations are smarter and more efficient.

Worried about retirement? Gee, lets go back to the pre-social-security days of the Great Depression.

Yes please, let's do. The main problem with those days was not that people needed the government to control their retirement funds for them, it was that the government was interfering in the economy.

Would I like to have my money invested on my own? Sounds good until I put it into a tech stock or Enron/KMart. Or the market tanks because some CEO of a major corporation is getting compensated by stock options and cooks the books.

On the whole and over the long run, it has been found that most people do better investing their retirement funds themselves, than the government does for them.

Of course there is no cost to society by my starving or living under a bridge now is there? Well, maybe the costs to remove my corpse from your front lawn. Or maybe your corpse if I get the drop on you while burglarizing your home or robbing your business because I am hungry.

Independance. Hooray! Every problem will be solved if we just go back to buckskin and flintlocks.

Can you say hyperbole?

A simplistic answer or rant does not solve the problem. [/B]

Umm, it was not me that was ranting. My answer may seem simplistic, but I went back to first principles. I can get as complex as you wish, but you asked a basic question and I tried to give a basic answer.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Can you say hyperbole?

[/B]

Dammit, I was trying to be parabolic, not hypoerbolic......

I surrender. It is clear you are of strong opinions in this area. I suspect that we could both bring forth facts, statistics, and personal experiences ad nauseum with the net result that we would not change the other's position one iota.

 

[Jonnyray]

The true idiots of the natural disaster arena are the morons who think a hurricane is an invitation for small craft to test themselves at sea. Then some poor kids in the coast guard have to risk their lives to save a captain & crew that make skipper & gilligan look like rocket scientists.

RosevilleCAguy - cool av

 

[brisbon]

What do you all think, if a person builds ina place known to be a natural disastor area?

Look what it got the dinosaurs.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I surrender. It is clear you are of strong opinions in this area. I suspect that we could both bring forth facts, statistics, and personal experiences ad nauseum with the net result that we would not change the other's position one iota.

Maybe, maybe not, but we would probably both learn something. I don't debate so much because I think I will change the mind of the person I am debating with - that happens only very rarely (so rarely that I can't remember the last time it happened). However, other people in the audience, those sitting on the fence as many people are, often do find themselves coming off the fence on one side or the other. These are the people I write for.

I also find that debating helps me think about and form my own opinions on the issues under discussion. I start from several premises; that individualism and independence is generally good, that collectivism and interdependence is generally bad, that impartiality, equality and honesty is good, and that bigotry and dishonesty is bad. I believe that a person can objectively determine from these first principles how to handle most situations they may encounter whether it be in interpersonal, societal or governmental relationships, and that when you ignore the logical conclusions from these principles you wind up violating them.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

the only ones I have an issue with helping are the numb nuts that over build on a coastline knowing that sooner or later a friggin hurricane is gonna whip their crap into the Atlantic. Inland, no issues at all, but to build your freakin house on stilts so you have beach front property is insane and asking for trouble. You reap what you sow.

 

[Hot4Heels]

Likewise, if a person is stupid enough to build in a known tornado plain. Tough noogies.

I dont think there is such a thing. Tornado alley gets all the hopla while we have more per year in norther Alabama. But that is rolling hills and you can't get those dramatic shots so less hopla.

I do feel that people that build a stick frame house on the southeastern US coast should be SOL when it comes to a Hurricane. You want to live on the coast fine. Don't build a house of popsicle sticks that will come apart.

Flood plains can be tricky. But is there is a wall of dirt between me and the river I have no intentions of being there.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

The true idiots of the natural disaster arena are the morons who think a hurricane is an invitation for small craft to test themselves at sea. Then some poor kids in the coast guard have to risk their lives to save a captain & crew that make skipper & gilligan look like rocket scientists.

Most boat and ship owners do not purposely run such risks during an out and out hurricane, it is when the weather is marginal that they think they know better.

BTDT - I have had to turn back many a small craft when we would enforce rules that anything under a certain size and not a commercial craft could not leave the bay. One time one small boat got by us while we were rescuing another that had it's engine quit between the jetties. I had given that particular boat a citation just an hour earlier for several violations and sent them back into Newport Bay. They went back out and tried to come in on the south side of the south jetty. They wound up in pieces on South Beach and one of the four souls aboard drowned before we could get to them. The skipper was obviously intoxicated, as were the other too I believe.