Red States Brace for Disasters Of Climate, but Won't Name It
Red states obviously are smarter than Blue states, do not engage in propaganda, lies and theft of citizens money for "story time" clinmat BS, and still recognize changes happen all the time, and you need to be prepared. Sounds like Red states are smart, Blue states simpletons...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Again, when you move into an area - you can inform yourself before doing so if there are particular natural events that are at higher risk for the area and specific location you are considering. Or, if you go into a high crime area - you know there is increased risk for bad things to happen. It is your choice to put yourself at those higher risk situations - mitigate it. Get insurance for the more likely events that may happen to you. You KNOW it is MORE LIKELY that 'X' event COULD happen to you so don't go there - or get insurance coverage to cover 'X'. If you go into a high crime area - mitigate the chances of getting mugged. I don't know that you can get mugging insurance - in any case be particularly careful to mitigate the chance of being mugged - just in case you end up dead in the process. Don't go the that area for one. If you must - take precautions - don't go out by yourself. Don't go into the worst know areas at 2AM and walk around in dark unlit alleys. Don't where a $50K Rolex watch on you arm with a short sleeve shirt so everyone can see it. Don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself. Don't have a large lump in your pocket with a $100 bill visibly hanging out of it. Just because you cannot guarantee getting hit by a tornado, earthquake, flood - or mugging - doesn't mean you are not responsible for being aware of the fact that you have put yourself in a situation with a greater risk of that happening and doing something about it. That is on you - not on everyone else to pay for the ensuing damages you incur when the damage does in fact happen.
I can't see how you don't get this. And, BTW - YOU are the one who lumped Stock market and and where to live - thus my comment that I assume you think everyone should be responsible for their losses as well. Look at you comment. You are arguing for natural disasters based on where you live being paid for by others and you group where you live and stock investing together - it is a rational conclusion based on the categories you established that you think tax money should be used to bail out losses in stock investing. If not - great we can agree there. Although based on your arrangements - I can see others taking the same line of arguing an apply it to stock investing - and practically anything else that they decide to latch onto when promising that goody to voters - for their votes.
And yes - I am not willing to bend on the idea that violating individual rights is OK because the collective deems it so. Maintaining individual rights is not anarchy. There is a very definite place for courts to be in power to judge and to uphold those individual rights. That is not anarchy - that is stopping tyrannical collectivists - or people breaching contracts, or for cases of fraud, criminal acts of violence etc. Again, you arguments are weak so you revert to a straw man argument accusing me of anarchy when that is in fact not the case - and then deny that you are in fact trying desperately to rationalize your collectivist positions while saying your are not promoting collectivism.
Be done if you want. That's your choice. I'll be here if you change your mind.
No one can predict a natural disaster. No one asks to be affected by a natural disaster. The fact is that we simply don't have a choice over whether or not we get hit. To assign blame to someone for something they can not control is more irrational than anything I've suggested. That's like saying that you're responsible when you get mugged simply for traveling to a city with a high crime rate.
"No matter what happy little spin you want to put on it - taxes are theft for someone who produced their income to spend it on their interests."
And it is this hard line with respect to government that turns so many other people off. Again, you can not deny that there are certain pursuits that government can entertain more efficiently than the common populace. Yet you insist on taking a hard line against government as a whole. Why? To what end? Anarchy? Go ahead.
"You included stock markets with where to live. Based on this - I assume you think that people who loose their money in the stock market should be compensated for their losses by stealing/taxing others to reimburse them? That's what you are saying about their choice about where to live."
That's not what I said and you know it. You've turned this into an absurd conversation now. You're not trying to find common ground or seek understanding. You've turned to zealotry. I'm done.
Interestingly enough, I have a lot of exposure to our county level politicians in a role where I can have some influence - and I have had it explained to me that the more you say and try to explain to people the more they twist it and cause more trouble - so keep it simple, direct, and short. That's not my opinion - I'm for more information, transparency, teaching/explaining - but they are the ones in office and I'm not. Maybe they are correct - but I would like to think not and that they just got bad advice.
Don't want the next guy to do that. Want the next guy to calm people down, and explain, the lack of need for government force.
I had not heard Donald signed a "
Prayer in School" thing. Not good.
I'm sorry - but I must admit that the point of not just swinging Twitter haymakers isn't coming across to me. I mean, I still don't understand the reference/comment. Do you mean that the next person who runs for President needs to ask the questions you mentioned vs just making punchy Twitter comments? If so - do you mean you don't like Trump Tweeting - or you don't want the next person running to think they are modeling Trump in Twitter by just being assess - and missing the point? I remember watching the Democrat debate in the mid-terms and I though it was funny how much they were trying to emulate Trump - and failing at it miserably and making themselves look stupid - more so than normal :)
With you regarding republican affiliation. The lesser of two evils.
The guy who runs after Trump needs to ask the questions above, not just swing Twitter haymakers.
My question to people now is: "Why do we need the Government to force us?" (electric cars, culture, etc). It elicits an interesting quizical response.
"Why do you need to vote with people who choose to use force, just because you agree with them? Do you need to force others to have your opinions, because logic will not suffice?"
I'll be ecstatic if Trump wins again. However, the guy behind him, need to ask these questions, not swing haymakers.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaki...
It is not irrational to expect people to mitigate and take care of their own self imposed risks, to take care of even the remote risks if that is what they think they need to worry about - or to suffer the consequences if they choose neither - or choose incorrectly. It is irrational to use the government to steal other people money to then hand it to them when something bad happens. No matter what happy little spin you want to put on it - taxes are theft for someone who produced their income to spend it on their interests. People out there trying to save money to buy a house have no interest in paying for someone whole built a house in a flood-way that miraculously - got flooded. Or a house in CA that was damaged in an earthquake, or a tornado in FL, or whatever. Stealing from one - subverting their actual rights - to take care of others who abdicated their responsibilities to protect themselves IS collectivist and irrational. You are positing that one persons rights superseded those of another - making it even worse because you want to do this is cases of complete denial of the realities of the dangers of where they live. But what the natural event is and where it happens is not really relevant. The basic principle of human freedom is. I don't care if a meteor hit someones house and blew it up - that does not justify stealing from others to pay for it. Private sector charity is the answer - whether from family, local organizations, or national organizations - as they get their money from those that are willing to give it voluntarily. And, I unusual crises - people are generally willing to volunteer to donate more to help handle it - the government wants the money all of the time - whether you like it or not. Other that the few 'services' the government provides that they should - like judicial and military - bull if they can do the job better than private sector. You ignore my points about layers of bureaucracy taking from those tax dollars at each level - with overhead, high salaries, politicians, red tape, etc... No the government does not do it more efficiently. I would even argue that military and judicial could be done privately - but as those are the fundamental services that should be provided by the government - so be it. The government is not responsible for the weather, people making stupid or irrational decisions - and the only way they can is by stealing from everyone and shifting those burdens onto people that were not responsible.
I agree that people should be responsible for their own decisions, but I draw a very hard line between things which are inevitable/direct cause->effect (such as socialism destroying freedom, etc.) and things which are risky (stock market investments, where to live, etc.). Risk is not eventuality.
That's an odd perspective. You promote socialism in stealing from one group to redistribute their assets to another that made living location decisions (on their own) while deciding (on their own) to not get insurance to cover themselves for natural events that are typical for their area. I would suggest that people who live in areas where water can flow quickly (like water in mountainous regions) to get flood insurance - even if they are not in a flood-way or floodplain. I would suggest that people in coastal areas - get insurance that will cover hurricanes. I would suggest that people that live in CA - get insurance that will cover earthquakes. I would suggest people in tornado alley - get insurance... Get the idea? They chose to live there. Get insurance that will cover the issues common to your area - if you don't and your house gets destroyed - don't have the government setting here stealing my earnings out of my paycheck to cover your stupidity. I have bills I need to pay. I have home projects I need to complete. If I want to donate money to someone in Oklahoma that had their house destroyed by a random giant hail ball - then that is my prerogative - but what you are suggesting it socialism/collectivism. Period. You say that you draw the line between inevitable/direct cause->effect and things that are risky - but that is arbitrary and will forever be in flux and is a statement that would be loved by socialists/collectivists because it gives them the ability to put everything in the risky category so they can take advantage of it to steal more people's money to redistribute it to others - based primarily on the fact that the 'other' ceded their minds from think rationally and to be responsible for themselves. You included stock markets with where to live. Based on this - I assume you think that people who loose their money in the stock market should be compensated for their losses by stealing/taxing others to reimburse them? That's what you are saying about their choice about where to live. Chose area A - and ignore area A's common natural disasters and don't get insurance for it - and now everyone else must pay for your choices. Yes, the people cannot choose what their weather or natural disaster will be or whether or not the want them - but then can choose to mitigate the damaged by insuring themselves accordingly. My argument here is not segmented nor was it from the beginning. I offered an example case - the underlying premise is rational thinking, conceptualizing reality - in terms of doing some research about the area you are moving to, abstracting that the results of your research means you should get insurance to cover the kind of natural disasters that are likely in (and even somewhat less likely) the area - and then acting on that and getting insurance coverage. Additionally - assuming responsibility for ones self to do that - and not expecting others to bail you out when you don't do so. Segmentation... BS - you are ignoring the core principles here across the board.
I also look at disaster mitigation. A vibrant economy will stutter from time to time, but a natural disaster can destroy an economy entirely. Economies depend upon volume of transactions, i.e. volumes of participants. When whole swaths of consumers are removed from an economy (via war, natural disaster, etc.), everyone in that economy suffers the slowdown. Getting those people back into the economy quickly means a faster resumption of normal business - something which directly benefits everyone. So the notion that a general fund for disaster relief only benefits some isn't really supported. Does it benefit those hit by the disaster more than those not? Sure. But that's the principle of any insurance product.
Again the core here is not violating the most important basic human rights by stealing from them and using them as a collective tool. This is the collective over the individual. The collective does not get to invalidate the rights of the individual for a collective good. They natural disaster you have discussed so far are extreme rarities and would be even more so if government would keep their fingers out of it. One of our worst in recent history would be Hurricane Katrina - right? Who enabled a city to be built 15ft below sea level by building their levees and flood-walls? Government. Was is risky or inevitable that this system would fail and flood a city? The point - don't build a city below sea level along the ocean - it's probably not a good idea. Maybe - people should leave the area - spread out through less dangerous places to live - and relinquish the area back to the ocean and swamps. I say it is inevitable that this will happen again. It's rational common sense. But this will not happen. They will stay there. In 50 years or 100 years - it will happen again - and you want everyone to pucker up and prepare to spend billions and maybe trillions to fix it - again. I have not interest in that. I live in as area with very low natural disaster areas - for a reason. Even before I worked as floodplain admin - I know enough to look at those flat areas bordering a river to say - nope - not living there. I don't disagree that an economy can suffer due to an event like this - that doesn't justify government theft and trampling the rights of the citizens - nor does it change the fact that insurance could handle this instead of government - a private decision based on freedom verse government coercion. It doesn't matter if is might benefit a community, a micro economy, or a macro economy - it doesn't justify trampling individual rights, treating them like slaves, and stealing from them. And your comment But that's the principle of any insurance product - correct - but there is a massive distinction between a voluntary insurance product and a government coerced, individual rights trampling, theft for taxes, TAX which is NOT and insurance product.
I'm not making a case for collectivism, just pointing out that sometimes individualism can be taken to such an extreme that people forget the truism that "no man is an island." We thrive by specializing - not by generalizing. Specialization only happens when you can pay someone else to do the things you don't specialize in.
This statement is just so corrupted it's not funny. You are certainly making the case for collectivism. Plain outright, no holds barred - collectivism. You are saying the collective should pay for these people who have abdicated their responsibility for themselves - in thinking or in protecting their own self interests. And why should they when people are out there saying they don't need to be - we'll make everyone else pay for their mistakes or misdeeds. Individualism is not taken to the extreme. That IS all we are is a collection of individuals. There is not collective rights - the collective does not exists. The individual exists and they doe have rights. You are used to the idea of income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc, etc. I doesn't mean that they are not violations of our individual rights by having a coercive government coming and stealing from one group to re-distribute it to another in roles and ways they were never granted to power to do. The founders did not establish these taxes - and they recognized the danger in people figuring out that they could voted themselves goodies when politicians started selling votes for distributing the goodies. Al mean are islands when it comes to their rights. They are not islands when it comes to basic knowledge and their need to specialize and deal with each other via freely trading. But again they are island when it comes to the effort they put in, the knowledge they attain (as thinking is not automatic and much be volitionally sought) - and then in extending that knowledge into new knowledge - such as scientific achievements and discoveries, inventions, and so on. But this all ceases when the rights of the individual are ceded to the collective - that means effectively that the individual no longer has rights and surely cannot count on them being upheld whenever the collected decides otherwise.
My street crossing is just fine. You may want to see it that way - but it is a person knowing there is a risk of getting hit, making the dicision to walk into the road blindly anyway and then wanting others to be responsible for not protecting himself. This blindfold being the lack getting insurance. Maybe he would get hit - maybe not. I'm picturing a one lane road in the country. He could go back and forth 500 times - but it's likely that at some point he will get hit. Without insurance coverage - and expecting others to pay his bills accordingly. Very good example. Now, you might make that a 2 lane road in the country - if you want to compare it to something like building in the flood-way or tornado alley.
I think we should explore both options openly and not automatically rule out a tax-based fund simply because it is a tax-based fund. That's just as irrational as you claim I'm being. I'm not saying this is the best way or the only way. I'm saying that there are appealing practicalities about it. That's all. I don't automatically rule out solutions to problems simply because they are implemented by government. There are a limited set of services government can provide more efficiently than the private sector - that's just fact. I'm open to the discussion on disaster response and relief but my mind is in no way made up.
"I find it inconceivable how you can see that there is higher risk for someone living in a 20% Chance Flood Zone than someone who considers that - and moves completely out of any flood zone - should then be responsible through taxation to flip to bill for the person who went on into the 20% chance flood area."
I agree that people should be responsible for their own decisions, but I draw a very hard line between things which are inevitable/direct cause->effect (such as socialism destroying freedom, etc.) and things which are risky (stock market investments, where to live, etc.). Risk is not eventuality. And while its fine to gravitate to discussions on flooding because that was your focus, again, pick any spot in the US and it's susceptible to some sort of natural disaster. Trying to segment up the broader concept is appealing to a certain portion of your argument, but when the problem is looked at on the whole, the segmentation - and its rationale - tend to disappear.
I also look at disaster mitigation. A vibrant economy will stutter from time to time, but a natural disaster can destroy an economy entirely. Economies depend upon volume of transactions, i.e. volumes of participants. When whole swaths of consumers are removed from an economy (via war, natural disaster, etc.), everyone in that economy suffers the slowdown. Getting those people back into the economy quickly means a faster resumption of normal business - something which directly benefits everyone. So the notion that a general fund for disaster relief only benefits some isn't really supported. Does it benefit those hit by the disaster more than those not? Sure. But that's the principle of any insurance product.
I'm not making a case for collectivism, just pointing out that sometimes individualism can be taken to such an extreme that people forget the truism that "no man is an island." We thrive by specializing - not by generalizing. Specialization only happens when you can pay someone else to do the things you don't specialize in.
(I also find your analogy about crossing the street to be fatally flawed, as it deals with strictly human interactions. A better analogy (though still flawed) would be someone at a railroad crossing.)
"To the roads - if there were a chance of them being privatized - again I think people more knowledgeable than myself could come up with reasonable solutions."
And if/when they do I'm certainly open to hearing them. Until then, I don't think its a hill worth dying on - or even climbing.
Yes there is practically no part of the country free of natural disasters issues. So learn what they are and get insurance to cover them. If you want to buy a disaster response package at a lower rate than a package that will give you money to re-build your home - that is on you.
The issue here is government intervention. If they would keep their fingers out of it - people would assume the responsibility to know their risks and to mitigate them. Government sticking their fingers in the mix also screws with the market - much like FEMA practically running out all the private sector options for flood insurance a few years back. They entered the market with cheap insurance rates backed by taxpayer dollars - ran the private companies out of the market, and then came back in saying they were going to have to jack the rates up to amounts higher than the private sector options before that had been. It ended up being Congress that stepped in and stopped that just prior to implementations that would have caused business to have to shut down due to the insane rates they were getting ready to impose. But that then put the burden back on the taxpayers to deal with these people's decisions to build and operate in flood plains. And, thanks to the government meddling (and I believe with this intended outcome) the private sector options were effectively destroyed. 'Cute' way for government to take over another private sector insurance arena. No surprise this was done under Obama's reign.
I find it inconceivable how you can see that there is higher risk for someone living in a 20% Chance Flood Zone than someone who considers that - and moves completely out of any flood zone - should then be responsible through taxation to flip the bill for the person who went on into the 20% chance flood area. Just because they don't WANT to be flooded doesn't alleviate their responsibility for moving into an area likely to be flooded soon. How can you rationalize that? I don't want to be hit by a vehicle - but if I keep walking across roads without looking and I get hit by a vehicle - how the hell is that on someone else to be responsible for paying my medical bills? It that same thing! How totally irrational.
To the roads - if there were a chance of them being privatized - again I think people more knowledgeable than myself could come up with reasonable solutions. Until that becomes a viable option - those solutions will probably not come to bear. I have no interest at the moment in studying to topic top to bottom - researching methods that have been discussed or trying to find others that may have been thought of but not publicized simply for that sake of a forum argument - but again on principle - private sector is more efficient than government. They are more responsive, less layers of bureaucracy taking their piece of the pie, less people spending other people's money that are less likely to spend it wisely, etc... I'm sure in the case of roads - you would have a handful of larger companies that would handle it. It's not likely that every Joe, Dick, and Tom - are going to own 500ft sections of road here and there. Larger scale companies would be in a position to implement fairly consistent methods and may be able to use that to their advantage to figure out ways of collecting the necessary incomes to maintain the roads without getting into ft level tracking of everyone. Who knows - again - even if I had a simple, easy solution right here that I could put down in 1 paragraph that would be easy on everyone and would save money - getting the government to give up that power would be like me deciding to run for President right now for the 2020 election and expecting to actually win. People like their status quo - power - money - kickbacks - etc. Tis' the nature of powerful government - they want the power for a reason - and too many people are willing to shirk their personal responsibilities, minds, reason, etc.. to let them do it. It's easier - right? Especially if others are expected to pay for it.
Show me one part of the country that isn't at risk for some natural disaster. The fact is that life has uncertainty. And again, it isn't a direct choice. Living in Tornado Alley isn't choosing to be hit by a tornado neither is living on a flood plain asking for your home to get flooded. It is taking a risk. Now is it a lot more risky to live in a twenty-year flood plain than a hundred-year one? Sure. (I work with my home state's disaster management agencies as a volunteer, so I'm glad to talk to another experienced individual.)
And as I said before, I think there's a debate to be had about whether private or public insurance is the best way to go about this, but I couldn't help but notice the caveat about private insurance in your statement. Why? Because private insurance for natural disasters is insanely expensive. Prohibitively expensive in fact. I think it should also be pointed out that these disaster funds aren't necessarily to rebuild homes, they are primarily to fund the disaster response, which in and of itself is incredibly expensive (as you are probably aware).
As far as the roads, the only way it becomes feasible is a massive tracking system that makes big brother look tame. I'm not saying that government administration is flawless, but I look at the efficiencies gained and contrast that with what would have to happen to institute 100% private ownership of roads and I shudder. It's fine to have ideals, but what is the real principle? It isn't being anti-government, its about efficiency. The complaints about government waste are about efficiency and honest use of taxpayer funds - not private property rights. Its upon that principle (efficiency) that I use to justify certain government services. Show me how private ownership of roads is more efficient and you've sold me.
When a person builds a home in the flood zone - that is there choice and it should reasonably be expected that they may be flooded at some point.That is why they should have their own private insurance - not a justification for the government to take money from people who decided - smartly - not to live in a flood zone. I would never move to tornado prone areas like the mid-west or Florida - with the expectation that if my home is damaged by a tornado - that someone else should be on the hook for paying for tornado damage to my home. Again - if that is a risk - get insurance to cover that. The higher your risk the more your insurance will be - but that's on you - not everyone else. And especially - if I know I am at risk - and a high risk at that - and I don't get insurance - then I would doubly have no business expecting others to pick up the tab for my decision not to protect myself.
I understand these issues very well - I was the Floodplain Administrator responsible for issuing permits for development in flood areas in our county. I eventually quit that position as I felt like there was too much government overreach in what it forced people to do and because of exactly this where you have people demanding government assistance for damages when they made the choice to build in a floodplain. It's just ridiculous entitlement syndrome.
You can get insurance coverage for most natural disasters cheaply when you don't live in areas prone to those kinds of disasters. So buy it. And it you don't then suffer the consequences of your decisions - but do not expect and/or demand that now somehow others should be responsible to pay for your choices. Again - want to ASK for assistance from private charities - good for you - but you have no demand to be made of anyone else.
This idea is pure collectivism.
And roads - it's not like the current system of how money is collected and used to pay for them is good. It is complicated - convoluted - corrupted - and then on top of that pays ridiculous wages as you mentioned for the work done. Private sector could handle it. You know that commercial trucking operations effectively do what you are talking about - they track how many miles are driven per county and/or state and literally pay fuel taxes accordingly to account for their use of the roads. Then you have fuels taxes when purchasing fuel. Then I'm sure there is all kinds of intermingling of other taxes in both directions once the government has their fingers on it. Now, I don't have the solution as to how it could be done - but the option is not at the forefront either as too many people like yourself are content with the status quo - but if there were serious consideration for privatizing the roads - I'm sure many talented people and business currently near that industry could devise mechanisms to collect money to maintain them without making everyone insane
There is no understanding "why", and no physics-basis that we need to act. ALL (you get, the word "all" right?) models correlating to results have water vapor as the dominant greenhouse gas, with empirical (not physics) connection to various other things. CO2 is among the various other things, somehow making water vapor appear.
All climate scientists know this, and few will offer it up, without prodding.
Of yeah, "Go Science!"
After her hand wringing about how Houston is Exhibit A for the climate crisis and climate change is a top issue for her constituents, she then can't see that the whole climate change scam has been just that: putting politics above science.
Now that we have dispensed with that "crisis" and do what needs to be done, there is no need for government action.
Load more comments...