I’m guessing 95 percent of our commenters will say, “Right on, let it burn. A contract’s a contract!” And yet 95 percent of those same people, upon finding themselves at the scene with a hose and a truck full of water, would have done the moral thing and tried to put it out notwithstanding the free-rider problem created by the Cranicks.
This is nonsense on stilts. I have no moral obligation to protect the property of others. If I see a neighbor's car being stolen I am under no obligation try to stop it. I do have a duty to report crimes to the police, but if the car gets destroyed before the cops arrive that does not mean I've failed a moral obligation.
If you want your personal property protected then it is incumbent upon you to provide for said protection. Period.
The homeowner in this case played roulette with his home and lost. And he (now) knows it.
“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.
So, if the Cranick family is now impoverished because of this fire (and I haven't even heard if he bothered to pay for insurance), there is only one person to blame and it isn't the firefighters.
Conservatives will often claim they want to live in a society where people are expected and encouraged to look after themselves, but if that is to mean anything it has to mean that people will bear the consequences for their foolish choices. "Protecting" people from their choices isn't treating them like adults, its treating them like children. Bailing everyone out only encourages more people to act irresponsibly. It is the slow path to infantilizing a nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment