you = think aliens that live in the hollow earth control the planet.

your opinion = irrelevant.

Tornado Alley

What should we do with this massive area, after we get everyone out of there?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nado_alley.gif

sorry i think the hollow earth aliens were zapping my mind there for a sec.

You pay taxes so you can live in a civilized society. You don't like it? Move to Somalia or Sudan or some other failed state that's a functioning example of a libertarian society.

Depending on the magnitude of the disaster, not all states have the resources to deal with it, Katrina being a perfect example of that. Plus, natural disasters don't always occur in areas that are prone to them. You know the biggest fault line in the U.S. is along the Mississippi River? THE HIGHEST EARTHQUAKE RISK in the UNITED STATES outside the West Coast is along the New Madrid Fault which stretches through Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky, Illinois and Mississippi. The last major earthquake along it was in 1811, so none of the building in St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis and all the other major cities in the zone are prepared for a major earthquake, which could happen. What about last year when North Carolina, along with a lot of other states that don't usually get them, got wrecked by tornadoes? Shit, there were tornadoes as far up as New Jersey. Sometimes extenuating circumstances require the federal government to intervene.

one day you "might" realize that not everyone is as selfish, small minded and clinically paranoid as you.

Maybe people should not be allowed to build homes on hills too, just in case they slide off. Everywhere. :1orglaugh

which branch? please help.

Again the point is being twisted. Actually, people should be allowed to build homes where ever they want to. They just shouldn't be allowed to take money from their neighbors by force if something happens to that house, or their car, their furniture, or other stuff. How can you guys not see the difference here?



/

so wait you guys are all for the government helping people out in tornados but the government helping people that are sick in the form of free medical care is not good?

I agree with you in black and white. However, I don't agree with turning a blind eye to human suffering. I'm also afraid that the current political climate on the right is creating a large divide where people will be far less charitable and much less likely to help those in need. It's much more convenient to just have everyone give an extra $0.3% or whatever it is. For every $10,000 you actually paid in taxes per year, about $30 of that goes to FEMA. Tough love isn't going to save lives or eliminate suffering in any immediate sense. In practice it's very much the same as compulsory insurance and taxes. In both cases, you accept that you must give back a percentage as a safety net and to hedge against greater loss. You may never use your auto insurance, for the entirety of your driving life and you'll have easily paid in $50,000+ or even $250,000+ depending. You would force people to pay $100s and $1,000s per month depending, for health insurance and they may never even use it or their needs can be denied because it's a very fragile system in favor of the insurance companies and shareholders, not those who need the insurance. At the end of the day, I'm still in favor of compassion over greed.

Which is fine for Ron Paul to say.

Let's think it through for a second.

Katrina, earthquake, fire, hurricane, floods, tsunami, etc. Wipes out your home and insurance policy. You have no where to live, nothing to sleep on, no clothing for you and your family, no toilets and completely reliant on charity. The disaster might also of effected your job and income. Especially if you're working from home on your keyboard.

So now Ron Paul thinks no one should step in and help, to save the rest of the US a few tax dollars. You're left phoning an Insurance company to find out the policy number, cover, exemptions, so you can sit on the kerb with your family waiting for the check to arrive. Praying they don't delay and delay or decide they're not liable because of some wierd clause and will settle in court.

I hope this never happens to you sperbonzo even though you think it's a great idea.

I can see your "I'm all right Jack and fuck you" attitude coming through.

Think of taxes as a form of insurance in times of disaster. Yes it's not a great system and probably not the most cost efficient. But it beats hands relying on some Insurance company who worry more about returning profits and dividends for investors than victims.

Maybe they should of waited for the Insurance Companies to pay out on the Gulf Oil Spill. Or wait for BP to shell out the cash, while everything got fucked up. And BP argued that the reason for 50% of the claims was the lack of immediate clean up.

Why stop there. Lets stop having Firemen, Police, Coast Guards dealing with accidents paid by the Government. Lets do that via Insurance Companies as well. </sarcasm on the last part>

In the absence of your smiling face ...

Actually I give to charities, I help friends who are in trouble, (sometimes having them stay with us for months when a disaster has hit their lives)... and I myself have been through some really really hard times where I had nothing and I was on the street. This has nothing to do with not wanting to help people. The more that government is in charge of people, the less that people will be wont to help on their own. The average person in the US gives 9 times more to charity than the average EU citizen, because in the EU the government is expected to cover everything.

I think that private groups helping people are far far better at it than government will ever be, much more efficient, and much faster in their response times... I think that that the whole world will be much healthier when people realize that the nature of government is to grow more and more, to centralize power more and more, and to control us more and more. Sometimes that control is buried in the name of "helping you". You should watch "Illegal Everything", by John Stossel.

Someone made a post about people being "allowed to build a house on a hill". I can see a day when the government will be able to make those decisions all the time. If the government is covering your risks, then that gives them the right to tell you where you can build.


.:2 cents:

I don't think he's an idiot. I think Ron Paul is a great philosopher. I'm just not convinced his extreme libertarian philosophies can work in practice overnight. It depends on a whole lot of people to be social, compassionate, and community-driven by nature but at the same time creating a larger group of people complaining about being forced to be social, compassionate, and community-driven. In order for it to work, it relies on them to want to do the same things they don't want to do.

Who the fuck is this JohnnyClips idiot? lol.

gfy's new philosopher and anti-authoritarian.

So we should all rely on charity. Assuming all out neighbors aren't in the same boat. :Oh crap

Yes in America you need more charity. Here we have National Insurance we pay as part of our taxes so we don't need to beg.

No matter where the help comes from, it needs to come immediately without some form being filled in for some risk assessor to check and then his superior to check and then sent to the accounts department for them to sit on it. assuming the risk assessors agreed to pay. What if your assessment of the damage doesn't tally with their assessment of what it should be according to their graphs?

As for private groups. You're clutching straws. Should a private group of cleaned the Gulf?

All so you can save yourself a few dollars in taxes. :mad:

There are times when disasters hit. Like my cancer and Eva's accident. We had paid insurance for all our working life and we were covered when the disasters hit. It's called National Insurance and covers you even when you fall on hard times and no longer pay. You've already paid for the times when the shit has really hit the fan and an Invalid and unable to work.

Am I relying on the Government or getting back some of what I paid in for?

Maybe the US should stop supporting Israel with handouts or has that stopped now? They could of asked their neighbors. </sarcasm>

Just another idiot. :2 cents:

you are free to move to the libertarian paradise the republic of congo.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

no i would get the AUTHORITIES to FORCE you to!

makes my blood boil that people entitle themselves to other peoples money simply because they were "too good" to insure themselves or "too smart" to build on stable ground....shit id never build under the sea level for fucks sake what kind of moron would???

its natural selection...you build where its not safe=you are an idiot you deserve to lose everything...

not when the aliens from the hollow earth control it. you should know that johnny c'mon.

yes it makes me boil when cowards rely on the state to enforce intellectual property rights instead of taking matters into their own hands. pathetic if you act me.

100 libertarian utopias.

but somehow taxes paid to your state isn't "stealing" and no force is used. please explain.

I think its funny when people yell for the free market. When they owe their living to the government funding of the Creation of the net.

but ron paul believes force is ok to be used to collect taxes at the state level. please explain.

lol jew troll got pwned again. The piece of trash needs to shutup and go away

I'd probably have a different take-away from his comment. To my mind he's saying that federal and state taxes are thefts of money from citizens.

no for ron paul it's ok for the states to "steal" taxes just not at the federal level.

Ron Paul have cash and can talk such bullish :P

Funny the amount of people that line up to suck the cock of insurance company CEO's.

He's a man who I feel sees but misreads other people because he wears idealistic glasses.

people who do not want to insure their property are not exactly in the same boat as people who make intellectual property and the state has not yet put in place adequate laws to protect their property....it is not even a close analogy....

as for IP holders protecting their own shit by use of force I agree with you 100% bro...shit I am a big muscular caveman kind of guy I'd love to fly the fuck over and make an example out of some emo hippy "file sharer" and film myself going caveman on his ass, would be some good entertainment LOL but unfortunately the law prohibits caveman behavior so I have to rely on the law to make things right....

I really agree with you 100% tho....justice ended the day they made it illegal for samurais to carry their swords, because in the old days some "file sharer" would steal my shit and I would cut him in half with a sword :thumbsup

So lets take this to it's logical conclusion. In cases of a disaster we should all rely on the Insurance companies or charities to come and help out.

9/11 costs approach $2 trillion
2005 Hurricane Katrina $84,000,000,000
2011 Joplin tornado $2,800,000,000
2011 Hurricane Irene $10,100,000,000
2011 Tornado $STILL COUNTING Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania

More here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll

Look at the costs of cleaning those up and add them to your insurance policies. Then figure out if you're going to save a few bucks on your taxes and not pay a lot more on your insurance. Because we all know how Insurance companies like to shave costs, look at the terrible cost cutting in the hospitals they fund. :upsidedow

They will cut costs if your policy wasn't up to date, you can't find it, it didn't cover that type of disaster, you got laid off and missed payments. Or for any reason they can think of.

Truth is the costs of clearing up some of these disasters would either bankrupt companies or hike your premiums to costs that would make little or not savings. Cold even add them to your cover.