Not sure if they have to carry flood insurance. Although I'd apply the same principle there -- I wouldn't necessarily require it by law, but then if a flood wipes out your home/building, don't expect the rest of us to pay to replace it.  

The "shoulder the burden for each other" is fine up to a reasonable point.  But ONLY up to a point.  Private insurance does a pretty good job of assessing the risks and setting commensurate premiums.  It's when insurance doesn't cover it and then they expect taxpayers to foot the bill that I'm more concerned about.  

There's a reason that insurance companies just won't cover some high risk situations.  And that's a good thing, because high risk situations should be discouraged. And those that choose to engage in such high risk should not be spreading the extra cost of that risk onto the rest of us.  

If someone chooses a high risk location, they should be allowed to. But by accepting the high cost of high risk.

Labels: moderation: safe