Posts like this make me think not much will change.
Hurricane Katrina is a national Rorschach test. People look at it and see what they want to see or what they have been conditioned to see.
Democrats look at Katrina and say: “Aha! Here is the bitter harvest of the Bush tax cuts! Here is the proof that Republican’s don’t care about poor people! Here’s what happens when you send your National Guard off to fight foreign wars!”
Republicans and/or Libertarians look at Katrina and say: “Aha! Here is the proof that big government is incompetent. Why throw money down a bureaucratic rat hole? And just look at where the welfare state has gotten us! Look at this permanent underclass in New Orleans with its lawlessness and its sense of entitlement!”
Nothing will change. People will twist Katrina to their own ends, consciously or not.
I firmly believe that a disaster the size of Katrina can be used to justify about any viewpoint. More guns/less guns, more welfare/less welfare, private relief/government relief, more federal control/more local authority. Valid evidence for all those views is evident in Katrina. I can’t see anyone really changing their viewpoint based on this example. The exceptions would be people developing a survival plan and stocking up with supplies including guns. Another exception would be Americans finally realizing what other Americans are capable of in difficult circumstances (both good and bad).
There are only few conclusions that you can firmly draw from Katrina:
Buses need to be available to take people away from impending hurricanes.
Destructive lawlessness needs to be supressed and controlled after a major natural disaster.
All cities need a worst-case scenario plan for disasters that can potentially affect them.
The govenment should objectively evaluate threats that are obvious and real and not microfocus only on the trendy threat of the moment.
Yes, and if you don’t go when the government tells you to…the government should then be responsible for your fate? This is a two-edged sword for you arguement. You have choose one of the following:
A) The government forces you to leave. They are responsible for helping you while evacuating and the security, but not the safety of your property while you are gone.
B) The government cannot force you to leave, but can recommend that you do. They are not responsible for you while evacuating and cannot provide security for your property.
See, with rights comes responsibilities. Had NO been completely evacuated by government order, there would be no looting and lawlessness and nobody would have drowned. There was not because this is America and we have rights (Goddammit!)
The right to stay in impeding disaster comes with the responsibility to take care of yourself during and after, so the government is not responsible for feeding you and plucking you off your rooftop and preventing your neighbor from raping you. The whole arguement goes out the window when people don’t have the means and therefore the freedom to evacuate. But…welfare and other government social services are supposed to help bridge a gap and make people able to provide for themselves, not completely reliant on the government for their eternal sustinence. They are not.
In fact, I do not have to choose one of those options. There area world of options out there which we could choose for our government. I assume what you mean is that you personally feel that the two most justifiable arguments are the ones you have chosen. I respectfully disagree.
I choose
C) The government cannot force you to leave, but can recommend that you do and should provide means for those unable to leave. You have every right to expect that law and order will continue to be maintained whether you evacuate or not. And if your decision to remain turned out to be flawed, the government should be able to rescue you.
We rescue back country hikers, skiers outside of marked ski areas, people who run out of gas at sea, motorists trapped in their cars during blizzards, etc. The government regularly rescues people who are in life threatening situations due to their own actions. I see no need to exclude people who fail to evacuate for hurricanes. You want them to die for one lapse in judgement?
We rescue some of these people, the rest die for one lapse in judgement.
There is still a missing boy scout in Utah (over a year ago), there is still a missing boy scout in Yellowstone (a few months ago). There are two men missing in my local lake (since 4th of July, IIRC). Last year, several people died in the Tetons when a freak blizzard caught them unprepared. A month and a half ago a park ranger died in his own park (ROMO) while on duty. If you expect the government to always be there to protect and save your ass, you have to give up your liberty. If you don’t want to give up you liberty, you have to be willing to fend for yourself.
As this is a hijack of the intended thread, if you wish to continue the discussion, please post elsewhere. Out of respect for the OP, I will not respond further on this matter in this thread.
On the other hand, this display of gross incompetence by government at all levels doesn’t do much for the credibility of government as a problem-solver.