Nope, they don't have to move but they should pay their own way instead of making everyone else pay to rebuild over and over again.

If someone chooses, for no good reason, to park an automobile across a lane on a highway and it gets crashed into, should the insurance company be forced to pay to repair/replace it? It's not all that different from repeatedly building homes/businesses in flood zones or along coasts where hurricanes are a constant threat and then demanding that everyone else ante up to pay for the damage. It seems rather senseless to me.

So we all need to find a place where nothing bad has ever been known to happen. And if we know something bad happens near us we must immediately move. It does not matter if the bad thing is a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flash or regular flood, wild fire, lightning strike, drought, dust storm, landslide, sinkhole, hail damage, insect invasion, or meteor strike. If it can happen a second time, you must immediately move.

If we don't move immediately, then our insurance against the risk of the bad thing happening is cancelled amd no public agency has to help us or our children, etc. if the bad thing happens again.

I'm thinking this is such a good idea it should be extended to cover manmande hazards. Why should we have to continue to pay for police or fire protection anyplace a crime or arson has been known to happen? Just require everyone to immediately move out of the area or lose police and fire protection!

And moving is easy because there is plenty of land, jobs, good schools, cheap transportation, and opportunity to be had for everyone all the time.

It's all so simple.

Congratulations Wildman, we both now have daughters who've weathered the storm. That which don't kill them...

Dweste, I think Grouch clarified that moving wasn't the only option, but taking care of and being accountable for oneself and their charges is socially preferable.

I think it a safe assumption that at some point all of us need a helping hand somewhere. I know I certainly have a time or two. No man is an island, but neither should they be reckless and irresponsible. I believe in a common good, as I am sure most here also do, which is why I pay 40%+ of my income to taxes, as well as donating a considerable amount regularly to charity. What I do not care for is when the two are blended, and the money I give the government to run the government gets used instead as charity, or to help the needy. The reason is that once it is used to bail out a select group of unfortunate people, whether their calamity is through their own neglect or incompetence or simply one of the risks of life, then it is no longer the common good, but a special interest, and most often does not remedy the real cause of the problem, but only serves to relieve some of the symptoms.

Some time ago I posted a quote from Davey Crockett, called "Not Yours to Give" (actually a quote of an interviewer of Mr. Crockett). I believe his argument holds just as true today as it did in his time. Rather than continue to reiterate the theme of his statement, I would suggest that anyone who hasn't yet read the transcript should do so.

After I read it the first time, yes, it was all so simple.

I am all for people helping people, but it ought to be at more of the grass roots level, and not a function of federal government, unless it is directed more towards the common good. Cleaning up NOLA after Katrina had many "common good" aspects that the feds needed to and did pay for, but also many special inhterests that should've been left alone, or at most handled by the local community and maybe the state governments.

The survival aspect of all this for me is that our currency isn't devalued by charity, leaving more revenue to deal with real common good problems, like a rotting infrastructure, strategic energy developments, medical research, etc., thus providing all of us a better chance at getting by, especially in times of crisis.

A better link to Crockett's article

Getting in the way back machine to find the original link, I saw the old link is no good anymore. Here's a current valid one.

I'm not gonna get very involved in this debate, since I am something of a fence sitter. That said, we have owned homes in CA for a lot of years, and still have a stick house there that is currently a rental. CA being earthquake country, we have earthquake insurance. The stick hours being in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mtns, we have fire insurance. Granted, our insurance only concerns our property, not the huge costs of fighting a massive wildfire (for that the government has to pay), but we would look to our insurance company to re-build our house, not the public. Is there affordable hurricane insurance available???

Thank you, benjammin, for expressing my thoughts much more eloquently than did I.

Dweste, I am not against helping people. As I stated somewhere on these forums, I went to Mississippi after Katrina and volunteered for a week to help a local police department that was overwhelmed by the storm's devastation. I went on my own time, drove my own vehicle, took my own gear, took my own food and water and paid my own way. Others went to do the same work only because they were being paid 40-75 bucks per hour, with all wages and expenses being paid by various entities (government, charities, etc.).

I'm a volunteer and good neighbor, right up to the point where I cease to be a volunteer, by definition, because the good deed is demanded of me. I once watched a news clip of flood victims being interviewed. They lived along a large river that flooded on a regular basis. I was dumbfounded when one guy stated, rather proudly, that this was the third time that their home had been destroyed by floods and that they planned to rebuild on the exact same spot. I could only wonder how many times that man had to stick his hand in a fire before finally determining that it wasn't a wise thing to do. How many times must we be forced to help someone like that before we tell them that they are on their own?

I think the issue is that the Law of Unintended Consequences is as relentless as Murphy's Law.

Problem: No insurance company is stupid enough to insure house in a floodplain.

Solution: Implement National Flood Insurance subsidised by everyone's tax money in order to "help" people who live in a floodplain.

Effect: Living in a flood plain is now more attractive. People have less inscentive to avoid a risky area.

Worse, some people purposely pack their crawlspace with old TV's, furniture and other "expensive" items that they can claim as losses every time it floods. They probably feel they are "entitled" to it.

I remember a number of fires in NO that "may" have been set due to no flood insurance, but there was fire insurance.

I don't mind my taxes rebuilding coastal homes if I get to come vacation there gratis each summer.

In a more serious vein, one of the things I like about this forum is that many of the ideas seem to be based on two fundamentals of life:

1. We are made to be in community. (We all need to give a hand and to receive a hand during our lives, as Benjammin states above. Humility and shared burdens can unite and ennoble a people.)

2. Nobody rides for free. (Somebody pays, whether willingly or by compulsion. As Grouch alludes above, a gift is given in freedom, with the cost borne by the giver. Reality and gratitude are sisters.)

I have a hard time remembering or acknowledging these things, but I think they are nevertheless true. It seems that a clear-eyed, clear-headed acceptance of The Way Things Are is essential to being well-equipped for life's smooth and rough patches.

While, I would rightly say that guy is an idiot, who is rebuilding his house? I assume he must have insurance therefore he is paying for it. Im am unsure of what exactly you are being asked to provide. You volunteer, which is good, but no on is forcing you to do this. I absolutely agree that he should pay for it, but I am unsure of how you think he isnt.

Hurricane Katrina would be an extreme case where we paid for a lot of things we should not have and I hope that never happens again.