Emir wrote:
Same in the case of floods and earthquakes?
The clue is in my use of the term ‘wide-reaching restrictive interventions’.
But since you ask, I believe that in areas at risk of floods and earthquakes governments probably have a certain role in building defences, maintaining building regulations, etc.
The primary manager of my own risk remains me, however, in that I take care not to buy a house on a flood plain or other area at risk of flooding. Earthquakes are not really relevant here, but if they were I would again look mainly to myself to ensure that the risk I was exposed to was one I was comfortable with and no more.
The point is that while certain interventions may or may not be reasonable, may or may not over-reach the proper role of government (and we could debate each case all day) I ultimately look only to myself in the management of those risks. I do not assume that a government is competent (or even motivated) to do it.
Of course not everyone thinks like this. Many believe it is their right to live their lives taking zero interest in the risks inherent in the world and trust that their government will always keep them safe and look after their interests. History shows that this is not necessarily conducive to a long, happy and trouble-free life.
Earthquakes are not really relevant here, but if they were I would again look mainly to myself to ensure that the risk I was exposed to was one I was comfortable with and no more.
You’re obviously clueless about earthquakes. There’s nothing wrong about that if you live in area with low probability but thinking that in confronting natural disasters you can be main risk manager is pretty naive.
I surely don’t think of government being much use in relation to natural disasters, mainly they are completely incompetent in issuing building permits in unsuitable areas, hungry for ever increasing property tax revenues. They then spend my money to rebuild those areas after the risks of their poor risk management are realized. The only limiting factor to the trend is the cost of private homeowners insurance.
My house is on top of a hill of granite for a reason – the location is resistant to both natural floods (there won’t be one, ever) and earthquakes. It’s interesting that earthquake motion at this location is quite different than in other houses I’ve owned. The benefits of the location were noted before purchase as part of due diligence – there have been some papers written on it.
Fire is the bigger threat for me, but the immediate area has a pretty good track record in that regard, also checked and noted before purchase. In addition, we have a fire station 0.5 miles from the house and another 0.9 miles from the house in the opposite direction. This was verified before purchase, by me and State Farm insurance. Full time staff there does nothing at all to disrupt my daily life.
Oh you forgot to mention that you chose to live in USA because there’s the lowest risk someone from neighboring country will launch mortar shell to your house. But this in ensured by DoD and US Army/Navy/Air Forces who also don’t disrupt your daily life.
In some aspects of our life we can manage risk by ourselves but in others we have to delegate that management to the government. That’s why we employ them and pay them.
You’re correct that my family moved to the US because of the stability and financial opportunity that comes along with it, and also because of the (not unrelated) lack of government intervention into our daily lives, particularly then versus now. Less is more.
The US military as you’ve likely noted tends to solve problems outside our borders, in unstable areas, before they have to disrupt productive lives inside our borders. We’re certainly glad not to live where life is a mess.
Emir wrote:
You’re obviously clueless about earthquakes. There’s nothing wrong about that if you live in area with low probability but thinking that in confronting natural desastres you can be main risk manager is pretty naive.
Well thanks for the insult, but I don’t think I am clueless about earthquakes. I manage my risk in relation to earthquakes by electing to live somewhere they are virtually unheard of. Because of that my knowledge is not extensive, but I am not clueless. If I was forced by circumstance to live somewhere where earthquakes were a real risk then I would probably educate myself to a greater degree on the subject and make choices about where to live, and in what sort of building, based on that. I would not discard the issue and assume that the government has taken all necessary steps to protect me. Consider also that managing risk does not necessarily mean eliminating it.
This is a question of mindset, not of the details of individual risks. It’s about whether you accept that no-one is as motivated as you are to ensure your own safety and happiness, or whether you devolve that responsibility to others. I’m in the former camp.
the relative lack of government intervention into our daily lives
This is something that one can hardly influence – it’s just what it is in certain period of history. Like any other country, US had it (during different wars, anti-communism histeria and McCarthy’s witch-hunt, voting rights marches, cold war in general, 9/11…) and will have it.
Well thanks for the insult, but I don’t think I am clueless about earthquakes.
I’m clueless about floods and about forest fires although I live in area where both are possible but one can hardly do anything alone if disaster happens. However, I gladly delegate risk management about both to government because the only thing I could do about that is to move to some other country.
Moving where things are good is certainty something that one can influence, as is moving again if and when necessary.
Silvaire wrote:
Moving where things are good is certainty something that one can influence, as is moving again if and when necessary.
There’s no place in the world where all things are good, so choosing what’s important in one’s life defines settling place. False sense of freedom is not on top of my priority list.
