Originally Posted By: Mithus
Originally Posted By: Derid

Actually I would say their employer has the responsibility to dig them out in that case.

I would not say it is MY responsibility to pay to dig them out though. Except indirectly as I purchase goods made from whatever they were digging for... which that money ends up going to their employer, which should be responsible for rescuing their employees.

Making the gov't pay for it just encourages employers to send people into mines they know are unsafe because if something happens they would not be the ones footing the bill.



Is hard to put a concept to you, letīs change to a situation where kids get stuck in a cave while exploring a forest... OMG smile. Or for example 9/11 tragedy where people where stuck at debris and would tooooo expensive to save them, would you accept the "State" saying would be too expensive, why iīm asking this, i know your anwser because in your view, you are a indivudalist :), and you would answer is their responsability to put in that situation.


In the USA emergency services are handled at the State and local level. Sometimes people are in fact billed for said services if it is found that they needed them due to negligence. The Federal Govt has put in its hand at disaster management in recent years, to disasterous results.

Even though it is called the "National Guard", in the USA the National Guard is actually a form of State level militia. The NG is usually the responsible party for major disaster/rescue operations.

Also, you should be aware that you are not comparing similar issues. Managing someones health care for them is an ongoing task. Rescuing someone is an isolated Deed. There is a huge difference between managing a system like health care, and achieving one particular yet isolated result.

By the same token, using a situation that compares workers in a mine - who by definition are often in the mine, working and getting paid to be there, and are adults - to children who might find themselves in a bad situation due to happenstance , well this is actually quite illogical and fails to illustrate the concept you were going for.

In my experience people, at least in the USA, freely volunteer their time to help trapped or lost people, especially children, of their own volition. Usually the local govt organizes or assists... and the locals, including myself are happy to foot the tax bill for these types of services. If a local official does not do his job, it is relatively easy for the community to replace them... as opposed to a Federal Bureaucrat.. who has no accountability to anyone.

As far as your comment on being an "individual" you are mostly correct. The only proper ideal of gov't is that of individuals coming together to organize a system to PROTECT their rights. As opposed to a system that exists as its own justification to determine WHO HAS rights.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)