It's a silly idea because calamities happen
Of course calamities happen. The question is who bears the risk. Personal responsibility and insurance pools have served us well, historically. Socialism, OTOH, hasn't worked very well.
the type of calamities whose reconstruction you suggest should not be funded by taxpayers are rare, ultimately affordable, and the reconstruction of the affected cities is in the public interest.
Let's take "rare" and "affordable" first. Do you think that, if we all pay to rebuild NO, Sarasota and Key West and Daytona won't expect the same thing? Did you notice that people are saying we should have a fund for Katrina victims like for the 911 victims? Do it once and everyone after that expects it. Precedent. Ophelia blew by. Rita's coming. Are the feds going to pay for rebuilding the housing that is lost from them? Talk about silly ideas. And dangerous ones. One further point on affordability, just because something is affordable, then the feds should do it? Good grief.
the reconstruction of the affected cities is in the public interest.
I have no idea on what basis you assert that. It's not intuitively obvious to me what difference it makes if people live in Cleveland or whether they go someplace else. (I use Cleveland so as to make the topic more neutral.) I have not heard any argument that it's in the public interest that Cleveland continue to exist in its present form.
Forget about dockworkers working that "national asset"; they wouldn't be able to afford the high and dry real estate since it has always sold at a premium.
If dockworkers are needed, then their compensation will adjust according to supply and demand. They will either be paid enough to live nearby, transported in from someplace a bit farther away, provided housing by the company, or something. There's no reason why they have to live where they've been living. Whatever added costs there are will be paid for by all of us in the form of higher product costs. That's the capitalist way.
Perhaps a village, but certainy insufficient to support a city of any magnitude.
So why does NO have to be a city of magnitude? Where is that written?
The city will be as big as the city gets. Some people will continue to live on low land. What is at issue is not where they live but whether they get subsidized for it.
I shouldn't have to explain this on a thread full of capitalists and conservatives...
|
