Ron Paul Interview

[redcliffsw]

Good one....

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-interview-fox-082811.html

[Diane Amberg]

Pretty good. But, he too falls into the trap we see here. Delaware has a  state regulation that prohibits building homes and hotels etc. out beyond the dune line on the beach... nasty controlling Gov't, right?  Right down the beach it becomes Maryland, which has no such regulation. They have huge hotels etc. right out on the beach. When the storms come ,guess who gets the worst damage and has their hand out for the most federal disaster money?  Not us. So which is better? 

[srkruzich]

Its simple.  IF THEY WANT TO BUILD on the coast, let them foot the entire bill when they get destroyed!  Not my or any americans problem!  Stupid is as stupid does

[Patriot]

Yes, nasty controlling nanny!  Send the nanny packing.

How about we reinsert the unvarnished fear factor into such development.  Remove the government safety net and make the private sector responsible for such losses.  If that means no federal flood insurance and a refusal of private insurance to underwrite the risk, then so be it.  If landowners are willing to risk the uninsured loss, let them proceed at their own risk.  Take away the taxpayer support for losses incurred by people stupid enough to build in such areas just because the view is nice.  Make hotels culpable in the event registered guests are injured or killed in a flood disaster.  After all, the hotel did entice people to stay in a hazardous location, No?  Whatever happened to 'Proceed at your own risk?'

Now which is better?  Which best serves to enhance smaller government and larger personal liberty & responsibility?

[Diane Amberg]

Maryland evacuates their hotels if it's going to be really bad, but then hotel workers are out of work all during the repairs but then the building sector thrives. Nobody makes anyone choose one place over the other, that's personal choice. Besides people can buy vacation insurance if they wish. How does one "make" hotels culpable? They tell people to leave. 
Delaware's way, less damage, less people out of the hotel sectors jobs, or at least for a shorter period of time. I've never been in favor of federal flood insurance myself.  Just two different states and two ways of looking at it.
Our homeowner's insurance is a little higher too because as rare as it it, we are considered to be in the hurricane zone.

[Patriot]

Maryland .................Delaware

Maryland, Maryland, Maryland.... Delaware, Delaware, Delaware... State, State, State... Government.  When do people realize how dependent they are on the damned government? 


True liberty mandates Personal Responsibility..... NOT dependence on the state.  And yes, stupid otta hurt.

[redcliffsw]

Right you are there Patriot.

This country was establsihed for liberty, not the taking thereof.  Dependency upon government is not liberty.

[Diane Amberg]

So then you aren't for states rights after all? If Delaware chose to mandate where to build and long ago the people agreed...what's the problem?
We do have referendums here. Some of the coastal land is owned by the state, parks that can be used by all and the National Guard uses some.
When Kansas has it's next hurricane we'll talk again. Remember this was started by Ron Paul. He stated people shouldn't be allowed to build in some areas. I saw that show. Not sure whose version of stupid you are talking about.

[Jo McDonald]

   



                         YOURS !

[Diane Amberg]

Mine? Then people shouldn't build in high risk areas and banks shouldn't give them mortgages to do it. There should be no Federal Flood Insurance that only a few can benefit from. If private insurance companies won't cover it, then too bad, unless people are wealthy enough to be self insured. So as usual, the very wealthy win out.