I have a problem with fining people “for their own good.” It’s part of the objection I have to No Child Left Behind. I can’t really find the words to explain my objection, but I think it’s more self-righteous than efficacious. The government seems like the “tough love” nanny, more tough than love.
Keep in mind also that a fine encourages people to blindly follow the wisdom that the government has declared correct. As we have seen, the government’s wisdom is often folly, even deadly folly. If I could go back in time and be in NO a few days before Katrina, even knowing what I know, I’m not sure I’d evacuate.
Yes. They are not in their homes, or hoping to defend their homes. The urge to try to stick with your home and your life as you have built it may be taken to unreasonable lengths, but there should be some deference to the principle.
I don’t think the same idea should apply in any way to hikers, who are more or less going out and seeking the danger, in your example.
I don’t see the difference with someone who slept with a girl after asking for and being handed a fake ID. Or for that matter after getting her birth certificate and the written testimonies of 27 people including her mother stating she’s actually 42 yo.
So, if you accept this concept for statutory rape, you can pretty much accept it for evacuations too. Generally speaking, it’s a concept I don’t like at all. In this case, one could argue that posting a flyer in front of the town hall for half an hour, without even warning the medias would be enough to get you fined if you didn’t evacuate.
He had the means to leave, and chose to stay. Isn’t that irresponsible at least?
And fining people for their own good isn’t unprecedented, is it? It is how we deter lots of undesirable behaviors, like speeding.
This is a serious problem, not limited by far to those unable to leave for whatever reason. Evacuation surveys done right around the time of Hurricane Ivan showed that two-thirds of nonevacuees with the means to do so chose not to leave because of a sense of safety in their homes or because of bad experiences with previous evacuations.
This is among people with means, now. They largely have cars and places to go.
Now, if we line up buses and shelters and hot meals, you’ll still have these attitudes. What on earth can be done to shake people out of this sense of inertia and get them to safety?
A fine might be a tool here, a useful one. And not because it makes me feel any more powerful. Indeed, I feel pretty powerless thinking about all these people nobody could help.
Sure, had he the gift of foresight. Or had he the confidence that both the government and the weather service were infallible. Myself, I don’t posess that confidence, nor can I see into the future.
Let’s put this in another context: Suppose you lived in a place that got pretty regular hurricanes, but not a one ever proved to be much more than a big wind. Let us also suppose that you live in an area where looting is a real possibility. Then both the government and the weather service warn of some great impending doom. You can either put your trust in these bastions of fortune telling and abandon your property to the looters on said bastions’ word, or you can stay home and protect your interests. Is the latter option really all that unreasonable?
He was in the highest point in the city, and had no car. I’d say that was reasonable.
You want people to evacuate, prove to them that they are at less risk by going than staying. That does not include the monetary risk of a fine for staying.
It’s a little surprising to me that a conservative such as yourself would endorse such a government nanny position. I can’t help but think that there is a punitive component to it.
Okay. Here’s the problem, as I alluded to in my earlier post.
As Mr. Nolan and Shirley Laska both demonstrate, even if we were to solve the problem of ensuring that transportation resources and shelters and supplies are adequate for the needy to evacuate, we still run into a huge problem that many people, needy and affluent both, will not want to go, and will resist a mandatory evacuation order.
What means should be taken to ensure that they comply? I have agreed that a fine might need to be put into place to provide an incentive. Does anyone else have any ideas, or does just sniping at this one suffice to make liberals feel better without accomplishing much?
Now there’s the ticket to cleaning up NO. Penalize every property owner who fails to remove standing water within one day.
More seriously, before one considers introducing penalities for failure to evacuate, one should first ensure that reasonable evacuation is available for all. Running large numbers of people through the courts when in fact there was a massive failure by the governments in meeting its responsibilities seems to me to be very inappropriate.
