Dave C.
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.
As I said: Emergency Rescue? Yes, within reason. Catastrophe Reimbursement? No.
Like I said: Emergency Rescue? Yes, within reason. Catastrophe Reimbursement? No.
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.
I can have half my cake and eat the other half.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
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.
If they asked my advice, I'd suggest they re-build on higher ground.
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.
No decision to make. No force necessary. We simply allow them to make their own decisions then allow them to reap their own consequences.
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."
All them to move? Yes. Move them? No.
