Of course they dont have the right to steal. The point is that preventing theft is a minor concern compared to saving people from suffering and death. Anyone who values property above any persons life is psychotic.
However we have in this situation soldiers told to shot-to-kill. This is putting at risk innocent people, who should not be shot; as well as not-so-innocent looters who should also not be shot.
Remeber that the police ignored the looters and were told to do so until tyhe resuce work was being hindered by people who were shooting at the police and aid workers (the hospital shooting). It’s difficult to evacuate people when snipers are trying to kill them. From this moment onwards the police were directed to stop the looters, something that the state couldn’t be bothered with because they had more important things to do (i.e. save people).
Well, perhaps other people dont share your particular religous beliefs.
Property ~is~ life. If you make $20 an hour, buy a stereo for $200, that stereo is 10 hours of your life. Someone stealing it is someone stealing the hours you spent creating that wealth for yourself.
Yes, the priority is delivering food and helping people. In order to do that, looters need to be stopped. Little old ladies stuck in their houses are not likely to feel free to walk out to get help if a bunch of nutcases are raiding the local shop.
Now, Im not religous in any way. If I were a business owner in N.O, stuck in my house taking care of my familly, I would want anyone looting my business to be shot, yes; and since I wouldnt be able to be there to do it myself, then its the gov’s job to do it for me.
That business is my lifes work, its the food for my kids, their education; yes, I consider my life and that of my family more valuable than the life of someone trying to get a free ride. Of course my property is more valuable to me than the life of someone whom I had probably never met. If it were otherwise, that would make me a fucking lunatic.
Now, if you have some weird religous belief that life and property are two completely seperate things, and if you have some weird religous belief that your lifes work is less valuable than the life of someone who wants to take it from you, thats great, you are perfectly free to allow yourself to be exploited and used by others as much as you want.
As for myself, I see no ultimate difference tween a wild animal attacking me and/or my family and a looter stealing from my business. Both are examples of external biological organisms following their biologically ingrained motivations and environmentally learned tactics to survive. I hold no real animosity to either; both are just using the tactics they’ve learned in the past that work in the environments they are accutmoed to. Yet I will still, without hesitation, take any means necessary including killing to ensure the threat from either organism no longer exists.
If you have religous beliefs that lead you to have a different view, thats great; but basing ones worldview on religon is whats psychotic.
New Orleans has ALWAYS been a dangerous place. Most hotel managers and cab drivers will tell you, as a tourist, to not stray out of the French Quarter. Now the criminal element is being pinched, many of them can’t evacuate for fear of being discovered. So, they are trapped like rats, and many of them will go down shooting.
I do not have a religious belief. I do however rate prevention of human suffering above protection of property and maintain that someone who rates the importance of property over human suffering suffers a personality disorder.
Back at the ranch, it seems as ccwaterback confirms - N.O. is an inherently dangerous place. That answers the greater part of my original question.
On the matter of poor crisis management, as I said earlier, the US government has been so obsessed with the irrational fear of terrorism that I bet it has lost the plot focussing on high risk events like this one. Scientific American Oct 2001.
Here’s an update on what’s happening in New Orleans.
Is this also because of the crazy, depraved looters and killers, right? It has nothing at all to do with the inadequate response of local and federal government. That brand spanking new, expensive governmental agency-- Homeland Defense, is just too overwhelmed by the crazy, lawless poor of New Orleans to rescue people. Sure it’s been 7 days, but GODDAMN, those out-of-control residents with the guns that they stole from Wal-Mart!
The fact that you make a distinction between human suffering and property protection means that you cannot equate property with human life, even though without one there is no other. It means you think humans are something more-than or other-than material, which is religon. The fact that you cant seem to grok the reality that property protection ~is~ prevention of human suffering indicates to me that you have an ideological agenda rather than any real attempt to understand the situation.
Um, huh? I don’t understand this. Of course there can be human life without property. There can be no human life without food, water and shelter.
It seems to me it is you who have some ideological agenda. The cynical, you-are-what-you-own type ideology that leads to blaming the dead for daring to live in the same state as someone who would steal from Wal-Mart.
You understanding of the situation is flawed by this ideology.
Emphasis added. Apparently you didn’t read my post:
Were you mistaken, or were you deliberately misrepresenting my position?
Cite?
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
So youre carrying a bowl of water to your kid, someone slaps it out of your hand, you get upset…but you have no right to be, it wasnt your property, right? You build a sheltor, but its not yours? At some point, food water and shelter have to become your property or you will not be able to make use of them. You have to possess all three before you can use them.
Im sorry, but there is no ideology involved. No, you arent what you own, but yes you are what you do, and if you do nothing, you are nothing. If you do nothing that other people value, you have no value. This isnt ideology, its the lack of it. If you want to ~believe~ that all humans are worth equally as much yadda yadda yadda, thats fine but its a ~belief~, an ideology; something you adhere to with no empirical proof.
Of course aid agencies are going to prioritize, and when they prioritize they are going to base those priorities (hopefully anyway) on real, material, quantifiable things, not a bunch of moralistic/ideological bullshit.
As for blaming the dead? Well, that was an emotional leap if Ive ever seen one, but in general no. It depends on each individuals choices as to wether its their fault they died; Im more than sure a few died due to the decisons they made, others through no decision they made. But then if someone dies on the seen, I dont blame the ambulance driver either.
Not exactly “shoot to kill”, but very close:
(Governor Blanco)
“They have M-16s, and they’re locked and loaded,” Blanco said. “I have one message for these hoodlums: These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will.”
I wouldn’t call that “close”. Saying that cops (or their stand-ins) know how to shoot to kill is just stating a fact. This was true before the hurricane, is true now, and will always be true. That’s a far cry from saying they have “orders” to shoot to kill.
“These troops know how to shoot and kill … and I expect they will”
[QUOTE=Vooodooochile]
And this point is not during a catasrophe. At some point you have to stop worring about other people’s waterlogged property and start thinking about saving lives. And it is exactly this point when it becomes the ideology of the selfish.
How convenient that you left out “if necessary” in the quote. :rolleyes: That statement, containing the part you left out, is true everywhere in the US today. Does that mean all police everywhere or “close” to have orders to shoot to kill?
Shoot to kill in New Orleans:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1451906.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/we-are-out-here-like-pure-animals/2005/09/02/1125302714538.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16466908-23109,00.html
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=347973
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000002073
Google “shoot to kill new orleans” for more.
Soldiers are taught to aim for center mass, whick is between the chest and stomach, around the solar plexus. They have a better chance of hitting their target that way. It’s harder to shoot someone with an M-16 and <i>not</i> kill them.
Cops, I don’t kknow where they’re taught to aim. But in a New Orleans situation, it’s tactically and logistically easier to shoot to kill. That way you don’t have the consideratins of providing medical attention to the wounded. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s easier.