4 ms·

Why any concern about private land being flooded? Landowners who are worries about it can sell it now, before anyone else has cottoned on or if they want to tak

by Hondor 10y ago

Why any concern about private land being flooded? Landowners who are worries about it can sell it now, before anyone else has cottoned on or if they want to take a risk, they can keep it. It's an individual decision for each land owner, and they're the ones who'll suffer the effects of their own personal choice. Doesn't seem like something for anyone to really worry about.

haimez 10y ago
You're right, no one should worry at all about the simple matter of private land ownership in New York as the sea comes in. It's a simple matter of private property ownership, right? No complicated information economies need be considered, right? No state programs might seek to intervene and disrupt the predictable linear progression of climate change, right? Anyone that's worried surely feels silly after reading your comment sir. Thank you for your godly libertarian insights.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Geez. He didn't really take it quite as far as your rebuttal, where you proceeded to beat on the strawman you created. He said nothing about state programs intervening and all of that. He's being downvoted quite unfairly for his apparent political stance, but he did have a point. While it would never work the way he suggested, it should more often. Instead, we privatize profits and socialize losses. I think a lot of people are or should be very sick of that trend by now. That was his point.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "While it would never work the way he suggested, it should more often. Instead, we privatize profits and socialize losses. I think a lot of people are or should be very sick of that trend by now. That was his point." Perhaps the rebuttal was as strong as it was because flooding of land does not only affect landowners, it affects everyone who relies on that land (in one way or another). To give some examples: * People could live on the land and not own it. * People could work on the land and not own it. * People could rely on the land as part of a major transportation route and not own it. * People could rely on the land as part of the infrastructure that provides their food (e.g. a local supermarket, a farmer's market, a shipping dock, etc...) and not own it. Therefore, to restrict the concern to landowners only is shortsighted. The impacts are potentially far greater than just those felt by landowners.
    - Hondor 10y ago
      All those people have decades to see it coming too. They too can start changing their dependence on it if they really think it'll affect them. Of course most people don't think ahead nearly that far and won't actually look for a new job until their employer literally goes underwater. But maybe we just need a bit of public education about the predicted future to help those people who aren't thinking about it themselves. Still, my point was focused on landowners, which the article seems to be too. Of course there are public services and so on that don't follow the free market and they're a different issue. I just don't think we should be fearing for the poor troubles that the owners of NY city property might suffer in 50-100 year's time. Those people are smart enough to evaluate risks themselves and make their own decisions long before anything is forced on them.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        I'm all for personal responsibility. However, I don't see the problem in the government playing their part also. Whilst some people have enough privately owned resources to work around the issues without too much fuss, there are those who have more limited resources who are less able to do so. Let's take the case of flooding in Manhattan. Let's imagine it hits the subway first. There's a large number of people in NYC who live outside Manhattan but work in Manhattan, travelling to work on the subway from the other NYC boroughs. Whilst people may choose to move away from NYC over time, what about those first few weeks after the flooding hits the subway? Other forms of transport are already heavily used, so it's not like NYC could continue to function smoothly by all former subway users using buses instead. In cases like this, I'd want the government to intervene to help speed up the implementation of flood defences and organise resources to help people continue to live their lives until they were at a point where they had the resources to move.
        gwright 10y ago
        One of the reasons that governments have a hard time executing on large public works projects are the costs. Advocating for regulatory changes that reduce the cost of public works projects (e.g. prevailing wage rules) would result in more of those projects actually being completed.
- hueving 10y ago
  Don't respond purely with sarcasm. It adds little value to people that don't already agree with your position 100%.
m4x 10y ago
The people suffering the effects of their own personal choices don't exist in isolation. They all work for or run businesses that affect the world we live in. If a significant number of people start loosing their homes or places of business to flood waters, the economic and social repercussions will affect all of us, not just the people whose property is now under water
pjc50 10y ago
Why would anyone care about the destruction of the World Trade Center? It's just private property, and the tragedy only affects the owners. (This is sarcasm, just to be clear, since I'm posting it on 9/11)
- Noseshine 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you are posting it at all, since it is not equivalent, unless you think people are not going to move when water slooooooowly rises. Even the big weather events that cause a real flood will be known well in advance. Also, humans are a lot more tolerant about nature then about other intelligence trying to destroy them or their property. And no (just to preempt that argument should it occur to someone), just because global warming is man-made it does not mean people release CO2 in order to destroy New York, not to mention that the New Yorkers participate like everybody else.

by Hondor 10y ago

haimez 10y ago

You're right, no one should worry at all about the simple matter of private land ownership in New York as the sea comes in. It's a simple matter of private property ownership, right? No complicated information economies need be considered, right? No state programs might seek to intervene and disrupt the predictable linear progression of climate change, right? Anyone that's worried surely feels silly after reading your comment sir. Thank you for your godly libertarian insights.

BuckRogers 10y ago
Geez. He didn't really take it quite as far as your rebuttal, where you proceeded to beat on the strawman you created. He said nothing about state programs intervening and all of that. He's being downvoted quite unfairly for his apparent political stance, but he did have a point. While it would never work the way he suggested, it should more often. Instead, we privatize profits and socialize losses. I think a lot of people are or should be very sick of that trend by now. That was his point.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "While it would never work the way he suggested, it should more often. Instead, we privatize profits and socialize losses. I think a lot of people are or should be very sick of that trend by now. That was his point." Perhaps the rebuttal was as strong as it was because flooding of land does not only affect landowners, it affects everyone who relies on that land (in one way or another). To give some examples: * People could live on the land and not own it. * People could work on the land and not own it. * People could rely on the land as part of a major transportation route and not own it. * People could rely on the land as part of the infrastructure that provides their food (e.g. a local supermarket, a farmer's market, a shipping dock, etc...) and not own it. Therefore, to restrict the concern to landowners only is shortsighted. The impacts are potentially far greater than just those felt by landowners.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    All those people have decades to see it coming too. They too can start changing their dependence on it if they really think it'll affect them. Of course most people don't think ahead nearly that far and won't actually look for a new job until their employer literally goes underwater. But maybe we just need a bit of public education about the predicted future to help those people who aren't thinking about it themselves. Still, my point was focused on landowners, which the article seems to be too. Of course there are public services and so on that don't follow the free market and they're a different issue. I just don't think we should be fearing for the poor troubles that the owners of NY city property might suffer in 50-100 year's time. Those people are smart enough to evaluate risks themselves and make their own decisions long before anything is forced on them.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      I'm all for personal responsibility. However, I don't see the problem in the government playing their part also. Whilst some people have enough privately owned resources to work around the issues without too much fuss, there are those who have more limited resources who are less able to do so. Let's take the case of flooding in Manhattan. Let's imagine it hits the subway first. There's a large number of people in NYC who live outside Manhattan but work in Manhattan, travelling to work on the subway from the other NYC boroughs. Whilst people may choose to move away from NYC over time, what about those first few weeks after the flooding hits the subway? Other forms of transport are already heavily used, so it's not like NYC could continue to function smoothly by all former subway users using buses instead. In cases like this, I'd want the government to intervene to help speed up the implementation of flood defences and organise resources to help people continue to live their lives until they were at a point where they had the resources to move.
      - gwright 10y ago
        One of the reasons that governments have a hard time executing on large public works projects are the costs. Advocating for regulatory changes that reduce the cost of public works projects (e.g. prevailing wage rules) would result in more of those projects actually being completed.
hueving 10y ago
Don't respond purely with sarcasm. It adds little value to people that don't already agree with your position 100%.

m4x 10y ago

The people suffering the effects of their own personal choices don't exist in isolation. They all work for or run businesses that affect the world we live in. If a significant number of people start loosing their homes or places of business to flood waters, the economic and social repercussions will affect all of us, not just the people whose property is now under water

pjc50 10y ago

Why would anyone care about the destruction of the World Trade Center? It's just private property, and the tragedy only affects the owners. (This is sarcasm, just to be clear, since I'm posting it on 9/11)

Noseshine 10y ago
I'm not sure why you are posting it at all, since it is not equivalent, unless you think people are not going to move when water slooooooowly rises. Even the big weather events that cause a real flood will be known well in advance. Also, humans are a lot more tolerant about nature then about other intelligence trying to destroy them or their property. And no (just to preempt that argument should it occur to someone), just because global warming is man-made it does not mean people release CO2 in order to destroy New York, not to mention that the New Yorkers participate like everybody else.