Should Taxpayers Bail Out Those Who Choose Dangerous Areas?

[William Joyce]

I mean, really.

Everybody by now knows that the Gulf Coast gets destroyed by hurricanes every other year. Which is fine... if you want to pay for the risk. But why should the rest of us have to bail you out?

 

[jillian]

Better question... should the government bail out corporations that make really stupid business decisions because they get the profits and socialize the losses?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Insurance companies won't caver these areas because their monetary doomsongs.

So the gov't comes in.

Now that properties are insured they're worth more.

As value increases cost to insure increases.

Disaster comes along and tons of money gets washed out to sea.

Get rid of gov't insurance and property values will return to reasonable levels.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Better question... should the government bail out corporations that make really stupid business decisions because they get the profits and socialize the losses?

Absolutely not.

Nor should they subsidize businesses.

Ditto private citizens.

The job of government is to protect us from force and fraud and coordinate relief for natural disasters, not take money from one pocket and put it in another be it person or corporation.

 

[jillian]

Absolutely not.

Nor should they subsidize businesses.

Ditto private citizens.

The job of government is to protect us from force and fraud and coordinate relief for natural disasters, not take money from one pocket and put it in another be it person or corporation.

Because of course post industrial revolution government shouldn't make sure employees don't die because of conditions at work (OSHA); kids don't go without education; food and drugs aren't allowed into commerce if they're unsafe for consumers (FDA)... nah...

why would government actually do things in accordance with the necessary and proper clause.

you know, i get the whole "libertarian" thing... and in an agrarian society, it might be correct in large measure; but in the real, modern world, it simply doesn't fly b/c government, at least in accordance with OUR consitution, gets to operate for the welfare of it's people. Society is far too complicated, and there are too many societal ramifications to the "every man for himself" thing for it to be allowed here.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Because of course post industrial revolution government shouldn't make sure employees don't die because of conditions at work (OSHA); kids get educated; food and drugs allowed into commerce are safe for consumers (FDA)... nah...

why would government actuallydo things in accordance with the necessary and proper clause.

you know, i get the whole "libertarian" thing... and in an agrarian society, it might be correct in large measure; but in the real, modern world, it simply doesn't fly b/c government, at least in accordance with OUR consitution, gets to operate for the welfare of it's people.

Libertarianism gives me diarrhea.

If local and state governments want to do those things they are within their rights to do so. Yet, one minute you screech to have education centralized at the federal level, the next minute you screech that a fundie might head the federal government.

Here's an interesting thought: if you took away all the federal programs not enumerated (to which the proper and necessary clause applies) you wouldn't have to worry about red-state fundies running your schools from Washington DC. ou can have you blue state education and the red staters can have theirs. Each can learn from the others successes and failures because--believe it or not--even fundies want their kids to excell at science, reading, math etc. And when one system screws up it doesn't take a national mandate to fix it, only a state or local election.

As for OSHA, the FDA etc...

I've said that if two people want to sell flour for 1 dollar for every 10 pounds it is all well and good for the gov't to say what flour is. That way if the consumer finds chalk dust in his flour he has legal recourse because he was defrauded. It also protects the business because he cannot be subjected to frivilous suits if the gov't gives him a firm definition of flour.

On OSHA, if the gov't, cosumers, and employees want to sit down and agree that Standard X is sufficient for a reasonably safe work environment the employer is free of liability if he operates within that standard even if an employee is injured.

"Weights and measures" are enumerated in the constitution but you need to seriously remember the fact that politics are cyclical. You should only enact such laws as you would leave to your worst enemy. My sig below is a coarse way of making you realize that fact. The more of your life you consign to government the more you surrender you freedom. Do it on a federal level and it takes far too long to affect change. Be very, very, very careful of what you wish for.