Ladies and Gentlemen, Malibu is Burning...
---
A modified version of comment I left on another blog regarding the Malibu fires:
But more to the point, the idea that "susceptible to acts of god" is binary rather than relative is wholly untenable. The notion that, with respect to the potential for natural disaster, building (or living) in San Francisco or Miami is the probabilistic equivalent of building (or living) in Connecticut or Utah is, quite frankly, asinine.*
---
When confronted with such assertions (i.e., that disaster relief is irrebuttably presumed to be a legitimate public good), I always seem to return to my meteorite example: If a single stray meteorite smashes through my window, then it's my problem. But if a massive meteor shower smashes every window in my city, then it somehow becomes the government's (i.e., the taxpayers' — i.e., your) problem? That simply cannot be right.
And if that can't be right in the context of a truly location-independent example such as meteor showers, then it even more certainly cannot be right in the context of those who wilfully, with full information beforehand, choose to live in a region with a greater chance of disaster. There is nothing "cruel" about the common sense principle that one should bear the cost of one's choices, both ex ante (i.e., via insurance) and ex post (i.e., no taxpayer aid).
I can (perhaps) forgive those who fall into the trap of the Broken Window Fallacy and try to legitimize disaster relief on the (incorrect) assertion that such redistributionist actions are an economic stimulus. They are not. But to simply shrug off any need to justify such a policy in the first place, to default down to a kindergarten "STFU" position, further demonstrates just how devoid of both economic analysis and common sense some apologists for the "everybody pays for everything for everybody else" style of central planning can be.
More thoughts at no third solution.
---
*Note that federal disaster declarations clearly show a lack of uniformity in "disaster likelihood" even despite their having been skewed by political expediency; a reality-based distribution would be far more unbalanced than even these politically influenced data. The idea, for example, that a "severe storm" in New York State is truly a "disaster" at all, let alone the functional equivalent of a major hurricane in Florida or Texas (or Louisiana), is laughable.
---
Chuck at Howling Point, who lives in Escondido (just outside San Diego), has been live-blogging the Malibu fires.
This "why should I have to pay for it!" is a popular lament, especially among right-wingers. ... The argument is that it's your own fault for living in a fire-prone (or hurricane prone, or tornado-prone) area. But unless you've found some patch of land completely immune to any and all acts of God, I've got a big steaming cup of STFU for you.First of all, the mid-Atlantic comes pretty close: No hurricanes, no earthquakes, no floods, no forest fires. The occasional Buffalo blizzard is about all. So remind me again who deserves the "big steaming cup of STFU"?
But more to the point, the idea that "susceptible to acts of god" is binary rather than relative is wholly untenable. The notion that, with respect to the potential for natural disaster, building (or living) in San Francisco or Miami is the probabilistic equivalent of building (or living) in Connecticut or Utah is, quite frankly, asinine.*
---
When confronted with such assertions (i.e., that disaster relief is irrebuttably presumed to be a legitimate public good), I always seem to return to my meteorite example: If a single stray meteorite smashes through my window, then it's my problem. But if a massive meteor shower smashes every window in my city, then it somehow becomes the government's (i.e., the taxpayers' — i.e., your) problem? That simply cannot be right.
And if that can't be right in the context of a truly location-independent example such as meteor showers, then it even more certainly cannot be right in the context of those who wilfully, with full information beforehand, choose to live in a region with a greater chance of disaster. There is nothing "cruel" about the common sense principle that one should bear the cost of one's choices, both ex ante (i.e., via insurance) and ex post (i.e., no taxpayer aid).
I can (perhaps) forgive those who fall into the trap of the Broken Window Fallacy and try to legitimize disaster relief on the (incorrect) assertion that such redistributionist actions are an economic stimulus. They are not. But to simply shrug off any need to justify such a policy in the first place, to default down to a kindergarten "STFU" position, further demonstrates just how devoid of both economic analysis and common sense some apologists for the "everybody pays for everything for everybody else" style of central planning can be.
More thoughts at no third solution.
---
*Note that federal disaster declarations clearly show a lack of uniformity in "disaster likelihood" even despite their having been skewed by political expediency; a reality-based distribution would be far more unbalanced than even these politically influenced data. The idea, for example, that a "severe storm" in New York State is truly a "disaster" at all, let alone the functional equivalent of a major hurricane in Florida or Texas (or Louisiana), is laughable.
---
Chuck at Howling Point, who lives in Escondido (just outside San Diego), has been live-blogging the Malibu fires.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
22 October 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
