FWIW, we actually do subsidize people living next to active volcanoes. If for no other reason than Hawaii is strategically significant (I think there are good humanitarian reasons also, but I'm pretty sure the US federal government would continue to see it as strategically valuable to help people in Hawaii recover from the occasional eruption regardless). https://recovery.hawaiicounty.gov/resources/recovery-grants/...
This is a fraught space. Without going into deep detail, the people of Hawaii care little what mainlanders think is "humanitarian" about where they have historically lived for at least 1,500 years. And to be fair to them, it's hard to make solid assertions that a living situation is bad when it has existed for 1,500 years.
Whether or not people live in Hawaii is not the question. Of course in a free society you can live wherever you want.
The question is is it good for the mainlanders to subsidize or give money to people in Hawaii to live next to volcanoes. As you said, they have lived there for 1,500 years without subsidies from others. They can continue to do so without taking capital from people who chose to live in safer places.
Quite a few of them would gladly trade the subsidies... For the mainlanders taking all their stuff, going home, and never darkening their island with their shadows again.
We won't be giving them one of those things so it seems fair to give them the other.
Sounds like you want Hawaii to exit the USA, which I also support. One tenant of freedom is Right to exit. If a super majority of Hawaiians want to leave the USA, they should! Any group of people in a geographic area should have the right to secede.
