🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave C. wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I've heard enough about this Planned Community stuff.
> >
> > What the United States is supposed to be all about is:  Making
> > one's own choices and reaping one's own consequences.
>
> agreed
>
>
> > If the consequences of one's choices leads to profit.  So be it.
>
> agreed
>
>
> > If the consequences of one's choices leads to loss.  So be it.
>
> agreed
>
>
> > This notion that the rest of the US is someone responsible for
> > the choices of those who live in hurricane areas is absurd, and
> > only leads to the more absurd notion that people should be told
> > where they may or may not choose to live.
>
> So I take it you believe that the U.S. should not spend ONE PENNY
> to help the people in the areas affected by Katrina and Rita?

Emergency Rescue?  Yes, within reason.  Catastrophe Reimbursement?  No.

Nor should insurance premiums go up in non-catastrophe prone regions
just to compensate their loss.  Catastrophe prone regions should carry
the whole burden of their choices.  If they want to live there, and be
protected by insurance, they ought to pay the odds.  If the insurance
company didn't calcuate their odds accurately, and take a loss, that's
the consequences of their actions.  When they over calculate their
odds, they don't give the money back.


> > If people are responsible for their own choices, and consequences
> > thereof, then the rest of the U.S. should wash their hands of the
> > situation completely.

As I said: Emergency Rescue?  Yes, within reason.  Catastrophe
Reimbursement?  No.


> > That is, the U.S. shouldn't dictate to people where they should live,
> > but also should not help people if they make unwise choices that
> > predictably lead to great loss of life and property.

Like I said:  Emergency Rescue?  Yes, within reason.  Catastrophe
Reimbursement?  No.


> > In other words, if you want the freedom to be irresponsible, don't
> > go crying to other people when your irresponsible behavior bites
> > you in the ass.  We are in agreement, right?

Now you're shifting terms.  First you speak of a "US", as though you
were speaking of the United States Government.  And, as I have said:
Emergency Rescue?  Yes, within reason.  Catastrophe Reimbursement?  No.

But, now you speak of "other people", as though individuals.  On an
Individual basis, say for instance, your house burns down, and you have
nowhere to live.  I have no problem with you asking if you can stay
with me, as long as I get to make the decision as to if I let you or
not.  But, I'll accept no OBLIGATION to house you.


> > You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I can have half my cake and eat the other half.


> Your freedom ends where you expect the children of others to go
> deep in debt paying for your own unwise decisions.

I have no freedom at all to expect others, adults or children, to go
into any debt at all paying for my own decisions, wise or unwise.  I
have the freedom to ask them to do so.  And, they have the freedom to
refuse or agree.


> IMHO  Rebuilding New Orleans for example . . . would cost less
> than we've spent rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq in the past year.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


> But we don't have the money to rebuild New Orleans because all
> of our money has been thrown at Iraq.  So we'll end up borrowing
> hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans.

If there is some intrinsic value to others in having New Orleans
rebuilt, then the money will be made available through private
investments.  Maybe there is.  Maybe there isn't.  I wouldn't invest my
money to rebuild it though.


> This is a tax on FUTURE generations.  Why bother?  Before the money
> borrowed to rebuild New Orleans is ever repaid, New Orleans will likely
> get wiped out several more times by future hurricanes.  So what is the
> answer?

If they asked my advice, I'd suggest they re-build on higher ground.


> Well, don't rebuild New Orleans is the obvious immediate answer.
> Either that, or ask Iraq for a refund of all the money we've spent
> there, and use THAT to rebuild New Orleans.  But that still won't
> solve the problem of people living in areas that are hit with
> hurricanes on a yearly basis (some years worse than others).

If I choose to build a house in an avalanche area, and it keeps getting
wiped out, I either choose to keep re-building, or pick a better
location.


> So we need to decide whether we are going to move people out
> of those hurricane-prone areas, or force them to assume the risk
> for their own bad decisions.

No decision to make.  No force necessary.  We simply allow them to make
their own decisions then allow them to reap their own consequences.


>  (that is, not send in aid, and not rebuild the areas,

As I said above: Emergency Rescue?  Yes, within reason.  Catastrophe
Reimbursement?  No.  Let me explain "within reason".  If someone keeps
making decisions which require their emergency rescue, even this needs
to be cut off at some point.  Probably with warning.  For example:
"Hey Bob!  I've had to pull you out of this quick sand 5 times now.  I
haven't got the time or the resources to be rescuing you every evening.
 Do it again, and you sink."


> when future hurricanes wipe them out)   I think it's a better idea
> to move people out of hurricane-prone areas before future disasters
> happen, as we obviously KNOW that hurricanes do happen.

All them to move?  Yes.  Move them?  No.