State of Responsibility
The concept of personal responsibility does not seem to be too complicated, if something happens and the result is of your own planning or lack of planning then you should be responsible for the situation, i.e. not expect others, especially the government to come in and save the day.
Well, obviously this principle is in a state of disrepair in the
What is the threshold for a natural disaster? If a tree falls over and destroys someone’s house, who should be responsible? If a series of trees in a tree dense neighborhood falls and destroys a few houses, who should be responsible? If a storm with severe winds blows down hundreds of trees that destroys hundreds of houses in a city, who should be responsible? The point is that regardless of the scale, why should the government give handouts to individuals that, in most cases, made a poor decision to not obtain insurance to protect their property in the case of a natural disaster (I am especially distressed at the idea of helping those who are living in government subsidized housing). In a free society people should be allowed to take risks and live in locations that are dangerous/prone to natural disasters, however, in a free society, government should have no right to plunder people’s income and redistribute it to cover the losses of the irresponsible.
Ronald Reagan had a famous quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help’.”
posted by Tip Tucker | 10:49 AM
2 Comments:
I agree. Seriously, why can't people take responsibility for their own property and purchase insurance. That's what it's for. If you have a nice house, get good insurance, if you have a crappy house, then insurance will be cheaper but it will still replace the roof over your head. Unfortunately, many people are too stupid to recognize these risks and then when the unlikely happens, they are ill prepared to deal with it and feel the government should fix it. I personally don't think my tax dollars should go to subsidize some idiot who doesn't think insurance is a good idea. If he/she doesn't want to pay for insurance, then he/she should be prepared to pay the consequences (in this case, starting over with nothing). Many would say this is the perfect reason to legislate that all people should have some form of insurance. This, of course, is also wrong. The whole idea behind letting people decide what their risks are and letting them choose how to approach these risks. A very legitimate option is to not have insurance at all. My renter's insurance is under $200 per year (yes I live in a cheap place) and assuming I live here 5 years it is my decision whether to pay almost $1000 over the 5 years or take the risk of not paying insurance premiums and make the choice that I don't want insurance. By doing this, I am bearing the responsibility to pay for my things (and my liability if I do something wrong) on my own. Long story short...we can't legislate intelligence and people have the right to make up their own minds, just as long as I don't have to pay for their mistakes through my tax dollars.
So, I seem to have rambled, but I agree with Tip Tucker
seriously. preach, brother. preach.
Post a Comment
<< Home