Ray:
You know my answer: people who build in floodplains (which, see, North Dakota and various other paths of the Mighty Missouri) and who live in coastal areas (see Florida and California) assume the risk of normal natural catastrophes. If you own a vacation home on North Carolina's Outer Banks it is your job to either buy hurricane insurance, flood insurance, earthquake insurance or assume the risk of loss. It shouldn't fall on the taxpayer in Kentucky to bail out your ass on the eastern or western shore. That's why we have insurance.
We ought to list the catastrophes people are assuming on the areas at risk. See John McPhee's excellent books on the overbuilding of California in the path of normal slides and storms.
Which also brings up, should the US government compensate victims of Islamic terrorism? Why should they be compensated when victims of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism were not? Or, put more simply, isn't every victim of a crime a victim of terrorism? Who cares whether it's gangster inspired, gangsta-inspired, Red Brigades or Holy Jihad inspired, it's all criminal activity, it all elevates its own ends over any citizen's right to safety and security, it all has victims, and they all suffer. Of course, my answer is, no no no & no. Again, the US government (the US taxpayer) should not insure against criminal activity of any stripe. Not that it wouldn't be nice or helpful, but that it wouldn't be practical. You get mugged and slugged at the Port Authority, lose $500, a week's work and incur $5000 in medical expenses because of a criminal. Should the loss lie with Uncle Sam (that Kentucky taxpayer) or elsewhere? How about if a bully steals your lunch money during 5th grade recess?
Kb |
