Hacker News Reader

Comment by woofyman | Hacker News Reader

He'd have more credibility if he canceled his government flood insurance.

http://crooksandliars.com/news-hound-ellen/john-stossel-just...

That's similar to the criticism that Ayn Rand collected at Social Security check. I think you can stand for a principle while still participating in the current system that you're paying for.

My gut idealist wants to disagree with you, but the rational economist in my head is telling me you're correct.

We shouldn't hold individually rational (net benefit) decisions against someone's principles.

Maybe so, but they can certainly be ignored - and I say that thinking Stossel is correct in his opinion on this matter.

I think the term you are looking for is "hypocrite".

Yeah, if you want to change the definition of the word to suit whatever meaning you intended the insult to have, sure.

Not meant as an insult to anyone... it's just the definition of hypocrisy. If you espouse some belief but act otherwise (e.g. want to eliminate social benefits but then claim them because it is rational or because of the system).. then you are a hypocrite.

No it's not at all.

If you believe drugs should be legalised but you won't sell them in public are you a hypocrite?

You can want system change and also work within it as it exists.

Your example doesn't make sense. If you believe drugs should be illegal but you use them then you would be a hypocrite. If you believe drugs should be legal and you sell them (in private or public) or even use them then you are not being hypocritical. If you sell then privately but not publically you're not being hypocritical either.

It does make you look unprincipled and inconsistent however.

Disagree. If you think somebody (in this case the government) is mispricing something, it's not hypocritical to say "this is mispriced" and still take advantage of it.

Is it objectively mispriced? Probably. But we would have to have access to all of the premium received and payouts made by FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/use-flood-insurance-study-data-availabl...

Of course it is mispriced... Large scale cataclysmic damage is just too expensive to insure, just as war is or an act of God is and that is why the government is the insurer of last resort. Ultimately, it will all come out of taxes. The government will bail people out, maybe not at full market value individually but definitely at the bank level. It will be the same dynamic as the 2008 housing crash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com