Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
An ad hominem argument is a fallacy unless it can be shown that the character of the proposer is relevant to the truth of his/her proposition. Even a pathological liar may correctly observe that the sky is blue. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if Nee transgressed then his propositions regarding politics are false. If you wish to refute Nee's points, you can't just attack Nee. You actually have to show how they are false.
|
The recent hurricanes have underscored the fundamental weakness in the political process.
During Hurricane Harvey it was depicted as "unprecedented" to have a storm drop that much rain. Harvey dropped 50 inches, the previous record in the continental US was 49 inches. So although it was record setting it was hardly "unprecedented". Add to this the fact that scientists have been warning that bigger storms are a consequence of climate change and I would say that this was "precedented", they were warned, and they should have expected that with the Gulf 2 degrees warmer than usual we would get this.
So then, why were so many homes caught in the flood zone? You can be sure the insurance companies weren't caught off guard, that is why 80-85% of those flooded in Harvey and Irma didn't have flood insurance.
Here is the problem for politicians -- if they tell people they can't build in certain areas they take them to court and argue they have freedoms, rights, etc. Insurance companies don't care because they make the flood insurance prohibitively expensive so that no one has it. The city absolves itself by creating maps of flood zones and then telling people "buyer beware" knowing full well that the majority of Americans have no idea how to "beware". Primarily the poor suffer as the rich are not going to go without flood insurance and if it is too expensive they'll get a property elsewhere.
So then the politicians take the money from the real estate developers for their campaign, absolve themselves by claiming people have the liberty to do as they please. Developers don't care. The risk of the storms hitting in any six month period is much smaller than the risk of it hitting over 20 or 30 years (life of a mortgage). Insurance companies don't care. This leaves banks. But, flood damage rarely destroys 100% of the value. A $300,000 house is generally a third land value and two thirds house. If the house loses a roof that can be $50,000 or less. Flood damage can add to this. But even if the damage is $100,000 the bank might not lose anything. The only real losers are the home owners who cannot afford to fix the damage, declare bankruptcy and lose everything.
This happened in Katrina, it happened in Harvey, and I expect it happened in Irma. Prior to Irma I heard that Florida had "prepared for hurricanes". Idiotic. You cannot prepare for a category 4 or 5. You can "prepare" for a Cat 1 or 2, but unless you can guarantee you won't be hit by a 4 or 5 you aren't prepared. Once again, all the politicians do is take the developers money to run their campaigns and then put a positive spin on things when the disasters do hit.
These disasters have been predicted, often 20 years before the fact. There is no "real" preparation or response except for a few exceptions. I read of one town along the Mississippi, they were told that they needed to move to higher ground and they did. They move the entire town to an area 200 feet higher and have not been flooded since.
So then, I think Christians should be aware of the weakness and ineffectiveness of politicians. That doesn't mean that government service is unchristian or that some jobs are more sanctified than others, a position that was pushed in the LRC. But if you are going to go into it you should not be ignorant of what is involved and the bargains that have to be made.