Hacker News Reader

Comment by exclusiv | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that since every state benefits from NOAA data it's a sensible investment federally? What if a state requires 5x as many resources as another state? We already have a scenario where southern states draw a lot more than they contribute. We enable states to avoid managing their own citizen's welfare. A lot of people don't want to pay for other people to live in known tornado alleys, just like those people wouldn't want to pay for people to live on fault lines overlooking the ocean or in flood plains.

View on HN

Let me put it to you this way:

There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy. Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money to try and keep people safe.

As to your point about people living in areas where weather tends to be statistically more dangerous: If the government came to your house and forced you to leave, how would you feel about that?

Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data?

Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay extra for insurance. Some areas are so risky you can't even buy insurance to protect your home. So maybe those states should come up with a strategy rather than let the whole country pay.

My stock response to libertarians: "I'm glad that things have worked out great for you". Before you propose dismantling an existing arrangement that seems to be working just fine, you first have to tell us why the existing arrangement is faulty in a real practical sense. If you can not do that, then leave it the hell alone. We have enough ideologues fucking with things already.

If you cannot see why people knowingly living in dangerous areas that have local governments that aren't accountable for preparing for these disasters and then relying on a federal government is faulty then you're not looking at it objectively.

We've seen it unfold before where the federal government is too late and more people die than should have given the circumstances. It enables states to defer the safety of their own people it depends on to function.

Most things should be at the state level. And you're wrong about libertarians. It's not about things "went well for me screw everyone else". It's about pushing responsibility to the states where it's supposed to be which is what I was proposing. Your rude stock response just means you aren't open to a discussion and are consumed by your own biases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com