21/08: Corollary of Small Government, #2
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post, I pointed out that small-government conservatives need to observe the corollary of our beliefs: we need to be involved in one or more of the myriad of voluntary groups that better society and help meet human need. Today, a second corollary.
In the last post I mentioned the flooding we had recently, and the need some people have for shelter after being flooded out of their homes. Now and in the coming months these families will need to show responsible character. What am I talking about?--Will they move back into their houses that flooded, or will they make another choice and move out of a floodplain? Moving back into a house on a floodplain is irresponsible: you are, in effect, counting on society to help you out of your difficulties when you are flooded again. You are acting in a dependent way. Perhaps the closest one can come to living in a flood plain responsibly is by setting up a "flooded-out" savings account, hoping to have enough money in it for food and motel bills for next time. The second corollary for small-government conservatives is family responsibility.
Floods don't endanger property: building in flood plains endangers property.
In the last post I mentioned the flooding we had recently, and the need some people have for shelter after being flooded out of their homes. Now and in the coming months these families will need to show responsible character. What am I talking about?--Will they move back into their houses that flooded, or will they make another choice and move out of a floodplain? Moving back into a house on a floodplain is irresponsible: you are, in effect, counting on society to help you out of your difficulties when you are flooded again. You are acting in a dependent way. Perhaps the closest one can come to living in a flood plain responsibly is by setting up a "flooded-out" savings account, hoping to have enough money in it for food and motel bills for next time. The second corollary for small-government conservatives is family responsibility.
Floods don't endanger property: building in flood plains endangers property.
photognome wrote:
Balancing public vs private responsibilities for the consequences of risk taking can be very dificult in application.
I suggest an analogy between "living in a flood plain" and any risk you or I choose to take while driving.
In either case we may find ourselves depending on both neighbors and and public and private sector agencies.
When was the lat time I
Drove too fast for conditions
Drove while too tired (includign any trip of more than 2-3 hours
ate or drank while driving
changed radio stations while driving
answered cell phone while driving
All of these, and other actions are known to me to increase the risk of vehicle damage and personal injury. Am I presuming a priveledge to become dependent when I do these things?
As a practical matter the definition of 'flood plain" seems problematic. When we lived in Houston our homeowner's insurance had a flood risk screening question "is the residence within 50 miles of ocean / shipping channel" the insurance company would not respond to my request to name any residential area of Harris county more than 50 miles from the ship channel.
Ho much of Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and texas (and New Jersey for that matter) would become uninhabitable under a reasonable application of a positio that living/building in a flood plain was too risky?
Perhaps a simple request for definition of 'flood plain' would negate this portion of my comments?