Today between 30,000 and 60,000 people were driven from their homes and their land flooded. These people were sacrificed for the common good. If this area had not been flooded then major cities downriver might have been flooded affecting millions of people and costing many billions of dollars.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/...Individual sacrifice for the common good of a larger community is something that has become inimical to Republicans lately. Their sense of rugged individuality would abhor having big government forcing people to do what they don't want. Communism! Socialism! There are probably a bunch of tea partiers out there armed to the teeth to resist any mandatory evacuations. But weapons mean little to the raging Mississippi.
This is an allegory to the free market system. With no government involvement, no dikes, no chanalization, the Mississippi would periodically overrun its banks flooding millions of acres destroying the homes of millions and killing hundreds of thousands. This sounds good in theory and it would certainly be better for the earth and the other animals. This would recharge the aquifers, and replace topsoil. But the humans would suffer. The hundreds of miles of dikes that protect those who live along the river, are similar to the rules and regulations that protect the consumers and prevent the free markets from totally destroying the world's economies. Without all of the rules and regulations an unfettered free market would be a disaster. We would have unsafe foods, and poisons and pollution everywhere. The corporations would be free to lie, cheat, and do all sorts of immoral acts in the name of profit.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/dec...This is very similar to the arguments about health Care and the individual mandate that is going on right now. The Affordable Health Care Law puts restrictions on the insurance companies, so they can't deny service, and so their administrative costs are limited to 20%. Some people, the healthy and young, would prefer not buying insurance. But if the insurance companies only have to deal with those in poor health, the cost of the program will increase substantially. The plan to sacrifice the rights of the few so that the majority can save money, is originally a Republican idea.
The Democratic preference would be a single payer non profit plan with less administrative upkeep that wouldn't need the insurance company middlemen. It would be considerably cheaper.
The Republican plan for an individual mandate was an option to reduce costs for the insurance companies but allow them to be in control. But with no restrictions on the insurance companies they would deny service to a third of the country and the rest would still pay exorbitant prices. Without either a single payer system, a public option, or an individual mandate, insurance costs will skyrocket.
Just as the government can force some people to loose their homes to prevent many others from loosing theirs, the government has a right to force everyone to get insurance so the cost of everyone's insurance costs will go down.