[TheForge] OT Threads ?

[Demon Buddha]

Walter Mullett wrote:
> About time....
> 
> This is not a personal rights issue.  Living in high  risk areas doesn't
> just affect the person living there.  It also puts the rescuer's lives at
> risk and it costs all of the rest of us. 

	NOt sure I can agree.  The properties in question are, presumably, 
owned by individuals.  It is their right to live there if they so 
choose.  I see no basis for stealing the lands.

	On the other side of that coin, I see no basis for helping them, either 
financially or otherwise, if they choose to stay in a place known to be 
dangerous.  If your house blows away and you can finance rebuilding, 
then you should be able to.  If you cannot finance it (insurance or 
otherwise) and it's destroyed, tough rocks.  If you end up on the roof 
with rising waters, tough rocks.  But of course we all know it won't 
work that way.  When the dung hits the fan, the whiners will be 
demanding aid and the rescuers, being the sorts of souls they tend to 
be, will go and endanger themselves.  Perhaps those who have been warned 
should be made civilly liable for all costs and losses incurred in their 
rescue.  I bet that would shake something loose.  But that will never 
happen because it will be painted as "inhumane".  Nonsense.
> 
> It's like smoking.  When you smoke around another person, you risk their
> life and your smoking costs all of us money.  

	Most of the things we do can be said to endanger others.  Driving 
endangers others.  Preparing food, drinking, skiing, biking... you get 
the picture, eh?  Differentiating based on "necessity" doesn't help for 
driving.  It's not.  We only lie to ourselves that it is.