Richard Rider and Richard Carson answer another burning question today: Is bringing in federal subsidies for insurance in fire prone areas -- on top of what the state already gives -- "three shades of crazy or an important step toward rationalizing fire risk in Southern California?"

Carson gives a nuanced answer using four principles. Here's a sample:

The first is ironclad: Fire insurance should not be subsidized by the government.

The second principle is that fire insurance needs to be available to homes that were already built before the current round of fires.

Rider disagrees with the latter, explaining:

Of all the things that government does, legislated risk management (primarily reflected in government insurance programs) is the one area that government almost always does wrong.

Read the full exchange and join the discussion here.