Mandatory evacuations: if you don’t leave, do they arrest you?
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/2443/in-a-free-society/
In a Free Society?
Previous post: The Ownership Society
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 8 comments }
I can imagine a private insurer who would say that not taking cover when warned was not an accidental injury, and thus reduce coverage.
But government? Stay, then cry for “relief” when the disaster does, indeed, plow right over you.
My understanding of mandatory evacuations is that the emergency rescue services come by your house and say, “You are on your own.” I think the mandatory might refer to government personal for the most part.
One argument is that looters will likely stay behind to loot from the people who left. I guess people could boobytrap their property or something, but in a hurricane, the boobytraps could be damaged.
It’s too soon to do correct arithmetic about the number of children, parents, or terrorists at Beslan School No 1.
But we know that the new school year is a big event throughout Russia, and that many many parents were at the school to celebrate the new school year’s beginning (part of Russian/N Ossetian civil society, not merely a function of the state).
Suppose even a tenth of those parents had possessed hand-guns or hunting rifles?
I have not seen this comment yet on any of the free market websites I visit.
Ben Cosin )I used to be a socialist – indeed, a Marxist-Leninist)
In recent bush fires here in Australia it was shown that where people stayed with their homes, the houses were saved. It was the evacuated houses that were most often burned down.
The NSW fire authorities say the main issue is not staying or going but when that decision is made. They don’t want people deciding to leave when the fire is in full front. See here for some discussion of the decision .
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:IqdbZzK1fR0J:www.nswfb.nsw.gov.au/education/publications/factsheets/03bushfireevacuation.pdf+bushfire+%2B+evacuated&hl=en
I suppose the nearest ‘libertarian’ equivalent would be road owners requesting road users make their go or no-go decision apparent before the disaster hit.
It is a bad not to be evacuated as to be evacuated wrongly. After 9/11 when downtown NYC should have been evacuated the local and federal governments chose to stay silent about the toxic threat- not even issuing a smog alert. Because of the silence and duplicity of the Bush/Gulianni governments 100,000 people have persistent coughs and sinus problems that are diagnosed as “new onset asthma” rather than WTC cough. If the Department of Health tracked these patients there would be tremendous leagal and insurance consquences.
So it seems that looters rather appreciate mandatory evacuations. But at least the government is protecting people against rogue tree cutting services.
Michael:
Nice tongue-in-cheek comment (I hope). Some friends of mine just sat through Frances (the eye passed over their town), with the intention of protecting their property and not to go a-looting afterwards. They reasoned (correctly, as it turned out) that if they evacuated, they would not be allowed to return to their homes until several days after the storm, when power was restored and the water was potable. By that time, looters might have gotten everything not ruined by the storm, but just as importantly, they would have lost valuable time in starting repairs and thus preventing further damage. I wouldn’t recommend it if you live in a trailer.
Comments on this entry are closed.