I did answer this before but the internet appears to eaten the comment. I'll be more brief this time. >Doesn't this end up being the usual privatize the profi

I did answer this before but the internet appears to eaten the comment. I'll be more brief this time. >Doesn't this end up being the usual privatize the profit, socialize the risk scheme? In short, there's very few locations which don't have advantages of a greater public pool of funds to assist in disaster. You might say this but I'll counter by saying that all residents of San Francisco are privatising the benefits of living in such a nice city, while greater California and the USA are socialising their risk of living in an earthquake prone area. The same goes for tornado country, or most of florida with Hurricanes, or wherever, really. So while you can probably argue the technical merits of such a statement it quickly can be applied to just about anyone, anywhere, and starts to look absurd. I would object if people living in flood zones were automatically provided with government funds to rebuild. While the government might donate money to the general cause of rebuilding (much of which goes to hardship funding) they don't directly underwrite private property. So the person with the most risk is the one living next to the river. As long as they don't expect or are promised help, then you're not socialising the risk. If people volunteer help after the fact, that's a different thing.