Volunteer 'Cajun Navy' Rescues Fellow Community Members Trapped by Louisiana Floods
I know, I know: "But government can do it so much better. Government sends 'trained professionals,' " yeah, just like they did with Katrina.
That's great! I'm glad the community came together. Neighbors should look out for each other and help one another. I hope they do that for the long term and not just during the short term. But not to worry, people are usually willing to make long term sacrifices for people they don't know.
Wonder why people were crying out for Federal Aid and wondering if Obama will tour the area? Probably the liberal media making up stuff again.
I can't wait for the Cajun Navy to repair the interstate system, the local roads, the sewers, all of the buildings, and get the feces out of the drinking water.
Hey, if they want State's Rights, then I'm all for letting them do it themselves. That saves my tax dollars. I don't especially like bailing out all these people who experience natural disasters and didn't purchase home insurance. You know, "responsibility" and all that stuff. They chose to live there and can choose to live somewhere else. Why should I pay for them...?
I know, right. The citizens should have hired private companies to build better levees, then it wouldn't have happened at all. Maybe we should start a Kickstarter campaign.
Better yet, the people shouldn't live there. They chose to live there. They could have moved. Why do I have to pay for their irresponsible mistake of living in a known flood area?
Exactly. Maybe the better idea is not to built houses some fifteen to thirty feet below sea level, and then expect anyone else to literally and repeatedly bail you out. These flooding tragedies wouldn't keep happening if people ceased doing stupid crap. But no! We simply CANNOT let people be responsible for their OWN lives and actions!
Amen to that!
"I can't wait for the Cajun Navy to repair the interstate system, the local roads, the sewers, all of the buildings, and get the feces out of the drinking water."
Were they to make the attempt, I'm certain they'd do a hell of a lot better job of it! Have you ever had the pleasure of driving on Louisiana's roads?
Yes, we should all live in an East Coast city.
They've forgotten the art.
We should all live where it doesn't fill up with water at least twice a year. That would be a good start. :-)
I don't have any problem with strong, LOCAL government. It's the federal part that chaps my a$$.
Anarchy is destructive. There's not many who will keep the evil deeds and people in check.
It helps if everybody is armed. That's how they handled 'anarchy' in the pioneer west. It wasn't the most efficient system, but it worked.
BTW, how does this situation qualify as 'anarchy'? To which type of anarchy do you refer? Situational? Zonal or regional? Compound? AFAIK, the government of the state of Louisiana is still in place (if not almost completely dysfunctional), and so is the fed.
The Local Militia's will defeat the Nazis and Commies!
...Unless they invade during the playoffs. Then we're screwed. :-)
In my case it was the exact opposite. I needed intervention, provided by health care professionals. So, I think government matters and I would like to see more of it. Especially in regards to mental health, which in my state is facing very poor treatment prospects. I wouldn't be able to afford the care I'm being provided if it wasn't for government funding and my schooling was funded by grants so I'm going to say big brother is a big buddy. Some might see it as a bully but I don't.
So the "haves" would do this all on their own if...?
To use your phraseology, socialism EVERYWHERE is fucktarded. It's innately cannibalistic. The problem, of course, is that, sooner or later, the 'haves (as defined by whomever notwithstanding)' get sick of pulling the weight of society. When that happens--when the rewards for 'having' become less than the punishment for 'having,' the 'haves' cease producing. That's when the system starts to feed on itself. That's when the definition of 'haves' becomes, numerically, less and less. That's when vital services become scarce and have to be rationed.
Venezuela, anyone? Venezuela is a textbook example of socialism in all its heinous glory!
1) Correct. That's why I get tickled when the 'have nots' somehow believe all the envy-motivated socialist claptrap that their plight will be improved by using the government to take from the 'haves.' In the end socialism DESTROYS the very mechanisms by which the have-nots become the haves...and then it all gets blamed on the haves. How convenient.
2) The economy grows when nobody gets in the way of upward mobility--you know, like government? When the have-nots can become the haves (e.g., Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, et innumerable al). the economy grows. It grows because the haves start buying stuff. The have-nots get jobs making that stuff, and if they're smart they become haves themselves.
Did you know that the federal government has shut down 18 times in the last 40 years, for periods up to three weeks? Nobody even noticed!
Of course not. You're the beneficiary of the forced largess of others. It's all a matter of perspective: if you're the one paying through the nose, the government is a bully. If you're on the receiving end of government assistance, the government is your friend. You vote your pocketbook, IOW. (Never mind that both you and the ones who pay are being played off against one another.)
And hey, for all I know you deserve every penny of what you get. You could be a vet. You could have paid into the system (Ponzi scheme) yourself for years, your parents could have paid into the system, etc. Still, it is what it is.
Nobody noticed...except for all the voters who cleared out both houses of congress on account of their senators and representatives "failing to compromise" on how much to increase the federal debt limit. :-)
Socialism is political and economic codependency. Enslavement by means of institutional dependency is "baked into the case" as it were. Immigration may exacerbate or accelerate the decline of an already doomed system, but as long as dependency is an option it will always be preferable to having to fend for one's self. Eventually, indolence overrides ethics.
Granted, some forms of socialism are better than others ('metered' or 'designer' socialism, for example), but eventually they all meet the same fate. And it doesn't take an economist or political scientist to figure out why. A simple understanding of Pavlovian behaviorism will suffice.
