Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I don't think anybody was "hoping" for a negative outcome for the family either, though - a fire, even an insured one, is a harrowing experience and nothing to wish upon anybody.
Acknowledging that the guy made a decision whether or not to pay a fee and thus gain fire protection isn't the same as hoping for the worst-case scenario. Similarly, feeling that it is a good thing to allow people to choose for themselves whether to purchase fire coverage isn't some sort of cynical or inhumane notion. Quite the opposite, in fact - I'd argue it's a sign of having faith that the average dude or dudette can make a rational decision in his/her own best interest and acknowledging that person's ideal risk tolerance. That's pretty positive, I think.
Does it always work out? Of course not, but that's life.
|
Sorry, you won't convince me that there's any 'best interest' or 'risk tolerance' in not purchasing fire
department coverage. This wasn't insurance. That's neither cynical nor an optimistic view on life. It's just a bad idea.
It's pretty much the worst place to push a 'small government' argument in my opinion. And no, no one's been successful at influencing it.