[tasty_freeze]

If there is a massive hail storm and my neighbor's roof is damaged and needs to be repaired, the reason all the neighbors don't pitch in and give him a new roof is insurance, not the government. You know, free market insurance. The part of your story about people pitching in has more to do with the skill sets of people back then vs now; even with all the desire in the world, I couldn't raise a barn.

And in the case of hurricanes, yes, the government does step in because even insurance companies can't afford that scale of loss. And if you look at the aftermath of things like Hurricane Katrina, yes, there was a lot of community involvement in coping with the losses.

There was more than enough misery to go around 100 years ago, and heaven help you if you weren't a member of the in-group. I'd much rather have the government help me out than having to pretend to be a member of the church, or whatever was required to be acceptable in such communities.

[WillPostForFood]

The question isn't why we didn't repair our neighbor's roof (I wouldn't know how either), but why we didn't invite them to sleep at our house while theirs was flooding.

[rusk]

What's this "we" business? I'd definitely invite my neighbours in if their house was flooded and they were out of options. I pay more than 50% tax when all is told. What's wrong with you?

[WillPostForFood]

I used "we" to reflect we as a society, as the original article was noting a the general decline of cooperation.

[rusk]

Sorry if I misread you. Unfortunately your comment found harmony with a prevalent libertarian chorus.

[rusk]

Ah, the first downvotes of the day start at 8am Pacific Time. Go figure.

[tomohawk]

Having insurance is prudent, but really beside the point. If you can safeguard your valuables by paying for a service, why wouldn't you? This really has nothing to do with civic society.

In the case of hurricanes, it's only because of government intervention and subsidies that people build in imperiled areas. Flood insurance mostly subsidizes more wealthy people to the tune of $3B/year. They would likely not choose to live in imperiled areas without the subsidies. Is it really a social good to promote the building of dwellings in places where it is likely the dwellings will be destroyed every 20 - 30 years or so?

Having seen the devastation of Katrina in MS first hand, this seems like a remarkably poor choice of things to subsidize and promote. In fact, when we were there about a year after the storm, the only people who were helping the people who were left were voluntary associations. The government had pretty much pulled out.

Tocqueville wrote extensively about associations and their beneficial impact on society. You should give his book, Democracy in America, a read. Here's an intro: http://www.learningtogive.org/resources/philanthropy-describ...

[wavefunction]

I remember reading stories of folks in hospitals and nursing homes left to die during Katrina. Or how many Congress people from a certain political party voted against helping out folks devastated by Sandy.

In fact, the "greed is good, corporations are people, etc." mentality that promotes selfishness as a vice is a major plank of one of the main political parties of the US.

[cmurf]

I think that's generous. If only it were limited to greed is good. This is about class, not merely greed. Class is the idea that some people are simply better than other people, be it by bloodline, family name, meritocracy. The preservation of the aristocracy is paramount, but right there along with it is aristocrats first, others second. Sometimes a distant second. If you have more money you get better education, health care, justice, and might even pay lower taxes as a percentage of earned income.

This sort of nonsense is also where we get prosperity theology from. You'd think these people would have read Job.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I honestly believe this is just people being people and wanting to maintain their quality of life for their children and grandchildren.

Tell me that if ever become exceedingly wealthy you wouldn't do what you could to protect your wealth. I know I'm doing what I can with what I have.

Only the extremly wealthy can be philanthropic to an extreme extent.

[eponeponepon]

> Only the extremly wealthy can be philanthropic to an extreme extent.

So it follows that the normally wealthy can be philanthropic to a normal extent, then?

Separately, I have to admit I'm unsure if you meant to conflate philanthropy with monetary value.