Mandatory Evacuations: Another disconnect from freedom & property rights

[rambone]

Should government be able to forcibly remove you from your home or town? In any 'crisis', does that mean you automatically lose your property rights & freedom? I think encouraging a voluntary evacuation is fine, but using force does not seem to be conducive to liberty. What if you are prepared, & want to stay in your bunker and protect your stuff from looters? You aren't allowed to go down with the ship?

"There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail." - Erich Fromm
​

"Mandatory" Evacuations - Are They Really Enforceable?

Hyde County has already declared a local state of emergency. It orders a mandatory evacuation for visitors and a voluntary evacuation for county residents beginning early Wednesday morning (today). The evacuation order becomes mandatory for everyone in the county early Thursday morning (tomorrow).

 

[Prometheus]

Why the government can't say "You stay, you won't get rescued till it's safe, it's your own risk" is beyond me.

I don't believe (aside from katrina debacles), they've ever forcibly removed anyone.

The biggest issue with evac is how long it takes before they allow you back home.

It's all geared for control and to make it easier on the government. Safety is just a guise.

 

[Boost Lee]

While I don't think it's right in any manor to force mandatory evacuations...

One thing comes to mind to make it utterly blunt to those who choose to stick around:

Do any of you recall News Reports back in 2008 during Hurricane Ike hitting Galveston?

And I quote directly (because I'll never forget it):
"Emergency workers will be taken off the streets and will not respond to any calls for help.
Police have told residents of Galveston that if you wish to stay to please write your social
security number on your arm..... With a threat like that... Would you stay?"

If they don't forcefully make you leave... they may go to the most extreme to make sure you'll regret it...

 

[jeremy]

Why the government can't say "You stay, you won't get rescued till it's safe, it's your own risk" is beyond me.

Cause some Ass-Hat would/or has Sue(d) the hell out of them...

While I don't think it's right in any manor to force mandatory evacuations...

One thing comes to mind to make it utterly blunt to those who choose to stick around:

Do any of you recall News Reports back in 2008 during Hurricane Ike hitting Galveston?

And I quote directly (because I'll never forget it):
"Emergency workers will be taken off the streets and will not respond to any calls for help.
Police have told residents of Galveston that if you wish to stay to please write your social
security number on your arm..... With a threat like that... Would you stay?"

If they don't forcefully make you leave... they may go to the most extreme to make sure you'll regret it...

I think it was very Honest of them to Place that Message out for those that were riding the Fence about staying or leaving. You have to remember the larger part of Our Populace is not prepared to go Hungry or Capable to go without Clean Water for more than a Couple of Days at most.

Maybe it is just me, but I do not see the Message from Galveston as a Threat to me It is bluntly Honest...

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I do not believe our rights should be protected only when it is convenient. Rather, it is when the situation may be dire that our rights to choose liberty over safety is truly important.

That said, I agree 100% with the governments claim that should you decide to remain in harms way rescuers and first responders will not come save your butt until such time as it is safe for them to do so.

I would not be opposed to statewide legislation holding rescue workers harmless from any liability when citizens have been warned that:

#1) Something really, really bad is coming our way;
#2) It would benefit you to get out of its way;
#3) If you do not get out of the way we will NOT come save you;
#4) If you do not get out of the way and are injured or killed no one may sue anyone because you were injured or killed.

There. Liberty and freedom remain intact while protecting those who help others.

Otherwise the State always has an out when trampling our rights. They will always hide behind some emergency (or perceived emergency) to use as an excuse to violate our rights.

Regards,

Doug

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Seems like there is a very strong case to be made that there is no violation of rights in this scenerio. The Constitution is silent on such matters, so I am not sure that states or local jurisdictions actually violate anyone's rights by having laws requiring you to leave a designated area when an emergency is declared. It would be one thing if it were a permanent taking. But this is a temporary evacuation order intended to maintain order.

As Jeremy said the problem is that the government (you and I) will be sued for not rescuing idiots. A personal injury attorney would salivate while listening to a 911 tape of a frantic call for assistance where the dispatcher says "Sorry. You're on your own. You were told to leave. You should have listened." ... Civil rights violation, no one informed me, I didn't give consent to be left, I didn't really understand the full nature of the emergency ... Then there are the lawsuits because looters were left behind.

Contrary to previous assertion, Katrina was not a forced evacuation. We forgotten (or some are too young to remember) that Katrina was a voluntary evacuation. And why was it a debacle? Look at all the problems that occurred as a result. People don't just put themselves at risk. They put everyone around them at risk too. Everyone expected to be saved. George Bush was a racist because he did nothing to assist, even thought that was the farthest thing from the truth. White cops were shooting black citizens for no reason, even though the citizens were shot while carrying stolen TVs or while looting the neighborhood grocery. I think it is disingenuous to argue on one hand against forced evacuation during an emergency and then call the resulting chaos a debacle.

This seems to be a circular complaint for some. The government wants to control you. It wants to violate your rights. Police aren't required to help you. But when they do the government wants to control you. It wants to violate your rights. Police aren't required to help you. But when they do the government wants to control you.

Not all percieved violations of rights are actually violation of rights, and not all actual violations of rights are nefarious. I think that this is an instance where the control and violation of rights are incidental to maintaining order, which is a state mandate.

While I lean toward voluntary evacuation I am still on the fence. If it weren't for the fact that lawsuits fly after one of these disasters I would say you're on your own, but sadly that just means you're on your own until the court doors are open again.

 

[phylodog]

I would not want to be forced out of my home for any reason. I vividly remember all of the "victims" of Katrina on the rooftops with signs begging for someone to help them. When that happens, it seems the populace immediately forgives those idiots for not heeding the warnings and jumps to criticize the Gov't for not rescuing them. It is a no win situation.

The bottom line is that there are too many people in this country who see the Gov't as their Mommy. They'll ignore her when the message isn't to their liking but cry and whine for her to step in and save them when they are in trouble.

Since the Gov't is heavily invested in weather prediction and monitoring I feel it should be obligated to make sure warnings are thoroughly issued. Putting human beings at risk to rescue those who ignore them should not happen period.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The expectation that everyone can or should be saved is a false premise to begin with. Death and destruction are the natural state of things, and that should be the expectation.

If anyone is saved it is by the grace of whatever or whoever is doing the rescuing and nothing else. No one is obligated to help anyone for any reason. I don't even care if it's your job to do so.

I don't think anyone should be forced to leave their home. If you're dumb enough to watch a class 3 hurricane hit your front door, then you get what you have coming.

 

[ViperJock]

The expectation that everyone can or should be saved is a false premise to begin with. Death and destruction are the natural state of things, and that should be the expectation.

If anyone is saved it is by the grace of whatever or whoever is doing the rescuing and nothing else. No one is obligated to help anyone for any reason. I don't even care if it's your job to do so.

I don't think anyone should be forced to leave their home. If you're dumb enough to watch a class 3 hurricane hit your front door, then you get what you have coming.

It would make for a large group ceremonial presentation of Darwin Awards! Which to me, means...Another chance to wear a tuxedo!

 

[RockofStrength]

It seems to me that if a state or emergency agency would be sued, that state needs to enact a law or provision exempting the state/emergency agency from saving people who willingly remain in a dangerous area. Not only does that make sense in general anyway, it seems to be the major reason why an evacuation has to be mandatory rather than voluntary.

 

[rambone]

The expectation that everyone can or should be saved is a false premise to begin with. Death and destruction are the natural state of things, and that should be the expectation.

If anyone is saved it is by the grace of whatever or whoever is doing the rescuing and nothing else. No one is obligated to help anyone for any reason. I don't even care if it's your job to do so..

This. This should apply in normal times and in emergencies. The police are not obliged to protect you, and FEMA is not obliged to kick you out of your home or fish you off your roof. All should be held blameless for not acting. Severe consequences should occur when your rights are actually violated; but no rights can be violated when they aren't even present.

There is such a thing as unpaid rescuers too.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This. This should apply in normal times and in emergencies. The police are not obliged to protect you, and FEMA is not obliged to kick you out of your home or fish you off your roof. All should be held blameless for not acting. Severe consequences should occur when your rights are actually violated; but no rights can be violated when they aren't even present.

There is such a thing as unpaid rescuers too.

No argument. However that is not the currrent state. How do we fix it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No argument. However that is not the currrent state. How do we fix it.

I don't think there is any fixing it. The vast majority do not share our philisophy. Until such point, it's just fodder for discussion.

 

[UncleMike]

IMO, it's a good thing that people ignore evacuation notices.

It gives Rescue Workers a chance to hone their skills, and get some use out of all that cool equipment.

It provides Funeral Homes with bonus income.

It gives the News Media a slew of "Breaking News" stories.

It acts as an object lesson for people who have trouble making up their minds whether or not to leave a danger zone when the next emergency hits.

It provides Biologists with more proof that Darwins Theory Of Natural Selection is true.

 

[RockofStrength]

No argument. However that is not the currrent state. How do we fix it.

I think many people on this forum have said it rightly...

you can't fix stupid.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Most people don't think that stupid should hurt either.

 

[88GT]

No argument. However that is not the currrent state. How do we fix it.

You didn't just ask Rambone for a solution, did you?

 

[IndySSD]

IMO, it's a good thing that people ignore evacuation notices.

It gives Rescue Workers a chance to hone their skills, and get some use out of all that cool equipment.

It provides Funeral Homes with bonus income.

It gives the News Media a slew of "Breaking News" stories.

It acts as an object lesson for people who have trouble making up their minds whether or not to leave a danger zone when the next emergency hits.

It provides Biologists with more proof that Darwins Theory Of Natural Selection is true.

I'd rep you for this but you're already full.....

Most people don't think that stupid should hurt either.

Heh.... that's funny right there... mostly because it's true....

You didn't just ask Rambone for a solution, did you?

Yeah.. I had to stop and re-read that to make sure I understood they were agreeing on something.

 

[rambone]

You didn't just ask Rambone for a solution, did you?

First we must determine whether we have the right to stay in our own homes. SemperFi says that the constitution is silent on this matter.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You didn't just ask Rambone for a solution, did you?

I've done so many times. He never has one, just more whining so I just stopped asking. I thought I would try again, and again he has none.

I don't know why I waste my time. I like pain I guess.

First we must determine whether we have the right to stay in our own homes. SemperFi says that the constitution is silent on this matter.

You are a master at reducing things to the upsurd.