Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government be obligated to rescue people who ignore evacuation warnings in natural disasters?
Results so far:
| Yes | 48% | 101 votes | Total: 209 votes | |
| No | 52% | 108 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe need to bring up this question is a little unsettling. Who are we to determine who will be rescued and under what circumstances? Has society gotten so petty that we have lost touch with our own conscience?
Just because someone chooses to stay when he or she know their lives are in jeopardy does not give the rest of us cause to judge them or insinuate that they aren't worth the effort of our government to go in and rescue them. I don't believe that I would be able to rest easy knowing that so many people needed help and didn't get it because there are those who have decided they should live with the consequences.
In the wake of Hurricane Ike, it was discovered just how many chose to stay on Galveston Island in my home state of Texas. These individuals were in desperate need of rescue, and our local, state, and federal governmental entities met the demand. Though I am the first to admit that they weren't exactly smart in staying, they do deserve the help. We learn from our mistakes and I'm sure that those people will think twice before they allow themselves to go through something so catastrophic again.
One reason people don't leave when in the face of danger boils down to economics. Not everyone who lives on the coast is financially secure. There are many who live paycheck to paycheck and simply don't have the funds to locate somewhere else, if only for a few days. It is a huge impact on them.
There are those with disabilities who are unable to leave their homes, elderly or not. Everyone needs to understand that sometimes, family members are just too far away or don't have the financial means to get to them and help them to safety; others don't have any family whatsoever and quite possibly no one else they can rely on to help them. Those who aid in evacuating residents don't go door-to-door during these efforts. One must be able to get to the point of debarkation in order to get on a bus to safety.
Sometimes those who choose to stay have reasons that go into the realm of ridiculousness. They have it in their head that it would be "fun" to go through a hurricane, have a hurricane party; they lose all reason they have. They stay for the "thrill of the ride", tossing out the common sense given to them. Even they deserve help in their time of ignorance.
There is yet another reason why some people stayed knowing that Ike was heading their way: Some people were actually helping others get loaded and on their way to safety. Time was not on their side, and these kind folks were unable to leave before the storm hit. I'm sure, however, that they can rest a little better each night knowing that they helped save lives.
It's not just about hurricanes:
If you live in Tornado Alley, you know that the risk of your home being hit by a tornado is going to always be there. If your home is destroyed with you in it, you are going to rely on emergency personnel to go in and, hopefully, get you out. You stay and live in the area knowing the risks every single day. Granted, there are several days worth of warning when there's a hurricane brewing versus a moments notice that there is a tornado on the ground. Does this mean that you deserve a rescue by these agencies any more than someone who lives in a coastal city completely obliterated by a hurricane? Absolutely not.
If you live in some areas of California, you know that earthquakes and wildfires could strike at any time, yet you remain there. In a time of need, our government is there to help you as well. This has been proven countless times.
In the end, we are all at some sort of risk living in the areas we reside in. Hopefully, not many of us will ever need rescuing, but if we did, we know that we can rely on our officials to do their best to get us to safety with little more than bumps and bruises.
For those who feel differently, I would hope you would think about how you would feel should your loved ones be put in a situation where they needed rescuing if they knew danger was lurking and didn't leave. I doubt any one of you would sit back and say, "Oh well. They didn't leave so they deserve what they get." You would be angry because they weren't helped.
Yes, by putting themselves in danger they are putting those who must go in and pull them out in danger, but it still has to be done. It's the right thing to do, and it should continue to be how we respond.
Learn more about this author, Kenzy England.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The first thing one should think about when trying to answer this question is what the purpose of government is. The constitution of the United States of America is very clear on what role and purpose government has, i.e., to ensure the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. A person's rights can only be violated through the initiation of force by some other person. Nature cannot violate anyone's rights and therefore government has no role in disaster relief or emergency aid. Therefore, my answer to the titular question is an unequivocal, No!
I realize that my reasoning will raise a lot of questions in the minds of readers so I'll try to deal with the obvious ones. But first, let me just say that what many people have forgotten in the United States, and never knew in most other parts of the world, is that someone else's need is not the responsibility of other people. What I mean is, it is each person's responsibility to think things through, judge the risks and dangers of the location one chooses to live and then take measures and precautions to have a plan if an emergency like a natural disaster arises. It is not the role or responsibility of government (or anyone else) to provide money or support for an individual's lack of judgment or planning.
More directly to the question though: People who decide to ignore the signs of a natural disaster do so at their own risk. It is entirely immoral to expect emergency responders or anyone else to risk their lives or spend taxpayer money to save such people once they have made their choice. This is not a question of compassion. One does not properly feel compassion for someone who knowingly acts self-destructively. At most one could feel pity for those who believe wrongly that they will be safe, whether they misjudge the severity of the situation, etc. But it is still a decision they have to make on their own and not an obligation on anyone else. The consequences of having freedom to think and choose are sometimes that one chooses poorly.
Under a government that understood that this type of function is NOT the role of government there would be private organizations that would be ready to respond to those who have subscribed to their services. Most likely run by insurance agencies and in cooperation with private fire departments and hospitals, etc. These would all be a normal part of contingency planning for anyone choosing to live in a dangerous area. And if you think you could not afford to pay these fees I'd argue that you already do right now in your taxes. But moreover, if you did not want to pay you could choose to live elsewhere or take your chances with the understanding the risk is yours to take.
The problem is that many now believe that they should be able to do whatever they want, live wherever they want, and ignore whatever facts of reality they want and the government (with the use of OUR tax money) will be there to bail them out and save them from their own stupidity. This is a bad mentality to encourage and a complete injustice to everyone who values their own lives and freedom.
Learn more about this author, Boxer Wyze.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
