Thoughts on forced evacuation.

[digitaldiscipline]

Elsewhere, it was suggested that forcing the remaining residents of the disaster that is New Orleans is the right thing to do. I disagree with this concept.

If people want to make unsafe decisions that could adversely affect their own welfare, they bloody well ought to be able to. If we take the stance that the remaining residents need to be removed, against their will for their own safety, to its logical conclusion, any potentially hazardous activity becomes illegal, from buying a beer to rock climbing. "We are the government, and we are here to protect you from yourself." No f'ing thanks.

The situation we have today, of mandatory safety legislation, frivolous lawsuits brought by people who, through their own stupidity, brought harm to themselves, is the beginning of this.

Darwin has failed us enough - let the stupid limit their own opportunities to breed. Legalize drugs, abolish helmet laws - but if you harm yourself, you waive your right to blame anyone else.

Freedom equals responsibility. I would much rather have both than neither.

Comments

[geekers.livejournal.com]

"Legalize drugs, abolish helmet laws - but if you harm yourself, you waive your right to blame anyone else."
I totally agree. We don't have a helmet law here, and many people choose to not wear one. I call them idiots, but they are free to choose to be idiots. :p

as applied to those who willingly stayed...

[mpeace.livejournal.com]

If people want to make unsafe decisions that could adversely affect their own welfare, they bloody well ought to be able to.

The problem is that these people then realize they are in over their heads (pun not intended) and call for help endangering the people who have to go rescue their dumb asses.

If the response can be "You screwed yourself, enjoy" then carry on with your ranty goodness.

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

On helmet laws - ya gotta get your organ donors somehow, right? I think helmetless motorcyclers should automatically be considered donors.

As to the evac - I dunno, I can see the point. Nola may need a complete reboot - demolish and restore. In that case you really don't want to have to pry a stayer out of every 10th home. Also, if you can truly EMPTY the city, you have little need for services like police, fire, medical, etc. No looters, no crime, just workers cleaning up and trying to replace the infrastructure. If the infrastructure is as gone as it appears to be, where will these stayers get food and water? They'll add to the waste and crime problem since that will be their only means of survival. I can see that it would be easier to work on the city with no residents left.

[ex-xn667.livejournal.com]

I still need to ponder your response to my own post, but this one I can handle on the fly because we agree. Besides, their so-called rationale isn't the safety of those who remain, it's the safety of those who would be stuck rescuing them if they get in the shit. Now, my knowledge of such things is hardly encyclopedic, but I think I remember reading somewhere that usual search/rescue missions are billed to the rescuee, at least when the rescue was the result of the "victim's" stupidity? For all I know they already have laws on the books akin to something like "reckless endangerment" should a "victim" require rescue, thus endangering the rescuer, presumably only used when the victim is a tard.

Of course, this might all be filed in my nether regions, in which case I beg for correction :)

Re: as applied to those who willingly stayed...

[etcet.livejournal.com]

At this point, the water's going down. These are people who stayed by choice (not because they had no way to leave), and who continue to stay by choice. To force them to leave against their will is, to me, wrong.

If, four days from now, they want to evacuate because a twelve foot alligator has taken up residence in their living room, they should be allowed (and assisted). They should maintain the option of choosing to leave or stay.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Logistically, I agree with you. In an ideal situation (which anything involving people ain't), that would be the best solution.

However, should a nuke and pave rebuild be necessary (espn had a crawl item that they may need to raze the superdome), broadcasting that "this neighborhood will be demolished on _____, get out of the fucking way or become part of the new basement" ought to be pretty effective.

[mpeace.livejournal.com]

broadcasting that "this neighborhood will be demolished on _____, get out of the fucking way or become part of the new basement" ought to be pretty effective.

Because the hurricane bearing down on the city didn't make that point?

You underestimate people's willful stupidity. An expensive, time-consuming and dangeous search will have to be under taken looking for these people because, sadly, we can't just pave them under with the rumble after making a simple get the fuck out announcement.

As for wrestling alligators, yeah, I think they should be allowed to become giant lizard snack food. Why should Alan's dad's life be endangered because these people refused to heed the original evacuation order? People who were unable to leave are one thing, people who what to play Survior are another.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

In my previous Political Science class, the teacher noted that the 3 branches of government only had to weigh between two classifications of a particular law: whether the law tended more towards Freedom or Security, and which it should be weighted towards.

In the present time period, it now needs to be weighed between Freedom, Security, and Equality. When each law or legal action is weighted more towards Security or Equality, then the portion for Freedom becomes considerably yes.

Personally, I favor Darwin. I think that we have, in our misguided benevolence, allowed just a bit too much Stupid to become present in our population...and that thinning is not such a bad option. However, this view is highly controversial.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

*nods*

It's hard to balance personal freedom against public good. The argument could probably be made that the storm wasn't a certain thing, but, as Arthur Dent and the Vogons can attest, a bulldozer in one's privet bush is hard to disregard.

I think xn is right, below, in that particularly egregious buttheads are billed for their rescue, but don't have research to back that up. A stupidity surcharge becomes part of life sometimes - whether you mis-book a plane ticket and need to change it, or get your ass stuck up a tree.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you know me. You just don't know that you know me. Yet, anyway.

In theory, I agree with what you're saying. But then, in theory, I agree with communism. Unfortunately, that's one hell of a huge battle you're talking about there. Convincing the system not to award people who are candidates for the Darwin awards with huge awards from the gratuitous and spurious lawsuits that clog our court systems is your first hurdle. And good luck with that, BTW. The lawyers are all having a real good time at the expense of having a functioning and balanced legal system. Because, as we all know, one side or the other will lose in a lawsuit, but the lawyers always win.

[ivy]

I agree with you entirely. (Wow, it's relatively rare that I give an unmitigated endorsement to anyone else's opinion. [grin]) While some governmental support would be nice from time to time, I don't want a nanny state.

Regarding mandatory safety legislation -- I can see why some of it exists. Knowing that your car isn't going to detonate on impact, for example, is valuable. However, helmet laws are stupid. I think the crux of this rests on whether you're choosing to knowingly take a risk -- if so, you should be allowed to if the negative consequences won't hurt anyone but you. (If you're somehow threatening others by your choices, that does make a difference and assigns additional liability to you if you do hurt them.)

[klytus.livejournal.com]

In theory, I agree that stupid people should be permitted to be stupid and let Natural Selection weed them from the gene pool. However, it is very rare that their stupidity affects only themselves. That's the rub.

Take seatbelt laws, for instance. If you are wearing a seatbelt and get into a car accident, you are far more likely to be able to walk away form the crash than if you hadn't. If you are not wearing a belt, odds are you will need to have an ambulance come and get you, give you emergency care, take you to the hospital, have doctors work on you... you get the picture. An idiot is not simply harming themselves by doing dangerous things, but they are also taxing the resources of emergency workers who might very well miss out on the chance to save someone who was not stupid and in need, but they need to go save the idiot because the idiot's accident was called in first.

And even if the idiot is dead at the scene, the other people in the accident are utterly traumatized because they just killed somebody, the idiot's family will be traumatized, the cops will need to do their investigations to see who was at fault... again, the idiot's reach goes far beyond them and their own stupidity.

So, if the choice is between letting idiots roam unchecked and tax our resources, or in making a few laws that will save them from themselves - and thereby save many more people from the trouble they would cause - I'll live with a few seatbelt and helmet laws.

And forced evacuations.

It isn't about saving the idiots - but about saving the rest of us from the consequences of their idiocy.

[ex-requiella957.livejournal.com]

This is very well put. Rafe, I agree with you in general about personal freedoms, but yeah, I think klytus makes a good point. Not that I wish to name names, but there are people that I know of who continue to stay in NOLA, continue to have fuel and other resources dropped off for them, etc. Personally, I think that's just selfish. I can understand wanting to be the "hero who weathers the storm," but at a certain point, one has to put one's stubbornness...errr, heroism aside, I think, and be more mindful of the greater good.

[stompymink.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree with this more. If it hurts ME that you're that stupid, it should hurt YOU even more. Let those who put themselves into an emergency situation pay some surcharge; those who deliberately do so after being warned of the hazard should be required to pay the (standard) surcharge as well as the actual "Hazardous Duty" pay for each of the personnel who saved their sorry ass.

The saddest thing of all is that we no longer have any "frontier" to which to send the stupid. "You are no longer fit for society, please attempt to develop this arid/swampy/deadly-animal-infested/otherwise uninhabitable land. Hell, colonize the ocean."

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I'll defer to shakespeare. "First, get rid of the lawyers."

The problem being, of course, that Congress is packed with almost nothing -but- lawyers.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right. The cost of stupidity is borne by more than just the stupid. Making stupidity painful, expensive, and fatal mitigates this somewhat, but doesn't eliminate it.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

to clarify - the problem isn't that we'd end up getting rid of most of the members of congress, but the established government would be awfully reluctant to get rid of themselves.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The network, already having been established, would be loathe to give up it's place of power. It all reminds me far too much of Animal Farm.

I am personally for term limits on any and all governmental posts for this very reason. If one cannot stretch a political position out for a lifetime (in the main, as far as I see it, this occurs due to inertia and apathy on the part of the voting populace), then perhaps the positions would attract more people who actually care about making a difference.

I think the author of our Declaration of Independence was right. We need a revolution every so often.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more. It's unfortunate that consequences don't remain a 'local effect' to those deserving. But, far too often, the actions of the truly idiotic impact innocents in very unpleasant ways. I believe this relates quite well to a post of yours about accountability, too.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

That's a fascinating premise. Let me play devils advocate for a moment, however.

Darwinism doesn't just favor the smartest, but also the strongest/fittest. In fact, sometimes stronger/more stupid can beat the ever loving crap out of smart/weaker. If we allowed utter anarchy, I wonder if it might actually benefit the physically stronger (but not as bright) elements. Thoughts?

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

(Not that I am saying your original premise was advocating total anarchy. You just have me going on an interesting tangent, and now I'm curious)

[etcet.livejournal.com]

There's a school of thought that contends that cleverness is occasionally a survival trait - the big, strong cavemen were occasionally crushed by the mammoth, whereas the guy who said, "you know, scaring it over the side of that cliff might work better" got to console the grieving, if hirsute, new widows.

large numbers of smart people make the things that make life easier work - utilities, the internet, oil refineries - killing them off is short-sighted.

of course, taking the long view is kind of what distinguishes one type from another, not simply physical prowess - there are many strong, smart people, and many dumb weak ones.

if there was a way to weed out -evil- people, regardless of net worth or IQ or bench press max....

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Absolute agreement here.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

if there was a way to weed out -evil- people, regardless of net worth or IQ or bench press max...

Well said, agreed, and I reiterate the earlier comment of "good luck".

Unfortunately, so long as people remain lazy enough to engender complacency and apathy (as we have at present), I see us continuing down a path that inevitably ends in the loss of still more (if not all) of our rights at the hands of those that I do believe are evil (by my rather esoteric definition, anyway). "Stupidity" isn't merely IQ. It's consciousness and wisdom. And right now, most people are happier being blissfully ignorant (regardless of the fact that some have IQ's high enough to warrant membership in MENSA), which gives those who are selfish and power hungry free rein to wreak havoc on those they see as nothing better than a resource to tap to support their own selfishness and greed.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

etcet's comments are very on the spot. Ditto as to what he says.

On a different tangent, I agree that anarchy would create a "Might Is Right" situation wherein the intelligent would be at a disadvantage betimes. Thus, anarchy cannot be supported. Instead, laws must be utilized to establish a particular fairness...one that supports the idea of Darwinistic action and, if necessary, forces the populace to accept responsibility for their own actions.

The tenets of ancient Chinese legalism tend towards the establishment of such a society.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

The tenets of ancient Chinese legalism tend towards the establishment of such a society.

Ooooooo. Now you have my curiosity piqued. Do you have any good links, or should I just google it?

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

The wikipedia article on it is fairly sufficient. See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Legalism)

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

Perfect. Thanks! :)