Does this bother anyone?

Theoretical example:
Many homes are now constructed to withstand Cat 5 winds. They are raised to withstand a 15 foot storm surge (Galveston had a 13.5 foot surge at landfall, 1 hour before High Tide). Many of you on this forum own generators, stockpile food, fuel, and water with backup purification capability. Many people that live in coastal areas track hurricanes for days, even weeks, prior to landfall, and additional preparation can be made in advance of the encroaching storm.
Granted, it is a mess down there. Personally, I would get out and hope that my insurance company didn't go Katrina on me (that is, pummel me with fine print, argue, coerce, brow-beat and deny payment until they were forced by some court somewhere, and basically delay, delay, delay until I either gave up or ran out of money to fight them for what is contractually mine).
I understand that many idiots put SAR in harm's way. Charge 'em.
I'm talking about rational, lucid adults who take responsibility for their own well-being and property - Those who know the risks and choose to prepare - which, actually, is a big part of what this forum is about.
This morning, news reports are indicate that the local governments will institute martial law. To my knowledge, martial law can only be declared by the state or federal government. I don't know much about this area of law, but this puts up HUGE red flags. Test run for a larger power grab? Suspension of the Constitution? Simply a step in a land grab (much of those waterfront areas will fetch 10X their actual value if turned into resorts). Will the military fire on civilians who refuse to leave their home? Will those who do not leave face legal consequences, such as criminal charges or property forfeiture?

Yes, its bad. But no government is my caretaker.

Incidentally, my family has property in the area - there are some pics here - the one of Exit 7, Texas City - my family's property is at Exit 4. The picture of the 1900 Hurricane monument is particularly poignant.
http://www.tpicks.com/pictures_people_have_sent_me.htm

All this makes for interesting reading.

On another note. Completely strip the island down and make it a state or national park with "NO" permanent residents. While they are at it. Back fill New Orleans to bring it above sea level. Make anyone that wants to live in an area in danger of being hit by a hurricane pay for hurricane aftermath rescue insurance.

"There is really no way to fix the problem".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gray Wolf

In those situations, their actions (staying when told to leave) will always put First Responders in harms way. And reality is, when people are hanging on to their roofs for dear life, and the news choppers show it, people will demand someone go and save them. Who's going to say, "no they were told to leave"....

---

And there lies part of the problem: the inability of the general media to report an accurate story.

What you are talking about is the theory that the government (local, state or federal) is the responsible entity for your life and well being.

What this idealism does is take away personal or private responsibility for one's actions. I've heard the suggestion several times that the responsibility can be replaced on the individual by compelling them to reimburse search and rescue. But in fact that is placing an undue burden on the individual if they do not need search and rescue services. Remember also, that because they are already paying taxes, they are already floating a fair portion of the S&R bill.

You are all worried about the government money being wasted saving people who endagered themselves by deliberately ignoring a mandatory evacuation, but you're not concerned about the money being wasted arresting people, confiscating their weapons and detaining them who were actually well capable of weathering the 'disaster'.

If money is our concern, then we should be concerned for both of these issues, not just the one that favors socialized risk (the part about rescuing the idiots). But in this country and the world at large, socialized risk has become such a part of our collective consciousness that we gloss over the financial burdens of forcing people to do things they don't want to do. We focus instead on the financial burdens placed upon us by the few people who resist the system of socialized risk.

Let's look at the motorcycle example. We are more concerned over the ones who choose to go without a helmet because of the risk of death and injury and the financial burden this would place on each person in the socialized risk system. But we are not so concerned with the cost of enforcing the system itself. We automatically assume that the cost of enforcing socalized risk is inevitable and morally justified (because of the financial burden placed on us by those who do not follow the recommendations of the system of course.)

This is a circular logic: the system therefore is justified because anyone who does not follow the system makes the system more difficult and costly to implement.

Another way of looking at it is to say: If you didn't have socialized risk to begin with, you wouldn't have to talk about whether to privatize the S&R cost risk, or whether to socialize it, or whether to allow a person to do this thing or that or not to based upon the effect it will have on the socialized risk system. So a viable option always remains: abolish the system, but this is the option never discussed.

Of course, the same arguments could be made to support a privatized risk system. We might say that the system that compels us to pay for other people's mistakes is unjust in that it causes us to bear the consequences of another person's gamble.

The difference is in individual liberty. In the case of socialized risk, the individual does not have the liberty to choose whether he/she participates in that system, it's is mandated and compulsory (even at gunpoint). In the case of privatized risk, a person is only subjected to the risks that any person is subjected to by the natural laws and to the risks that person makes an autonomous choice to take.

Too often we are encouraged by the popular patterns of thinking of our day to focus on the minutia. We are told "Here is the scenario, do you proceed with plan A or plan B?" But that is so often a false dicotemy. For example, if one was not forced into the two-choice system, one might stop and ask oneself "What are ALL my options?" and in considering those options one might find cause to ask oneself "What were the root causes of this scenario?" This can be important in decision making, because it allows one to take a critical look at the presumptions one might have about the situation one faces, and an option that in the microscope of immediate decision with no room for historical or future considerations may seem foolish or folly, might proove itself the better option in the long run by correcting the fundamental problems that led to the present situation.

In decision making, one cannot look at the minutia of a momentary circumstance to justify an over-arching systematic ideology, one must look at the over-arching systematic ideology to justify one's momentary decision.

Although there is a deep-seeded ethical problem with the socialized risk system, it does not need to be dealt with in such archaic terms. One can simply point to the sum of history in which socialized risk systems have consistantly failed. One can simply point to the sound study of economic science that shows socialized risk systems are unsustainable.

I'm against it, not only because it is a system by which the laziest and most selfish of humanity are rewarded over the hardest working and most selfless. Not only because it is a system that takes by force, political or physical, the hard-earned resources of each individual without their consent, equating to theft. Not only because it is a system that is unsustainable and destined to collapse and cause wide-spread turmoil. Not only because it is a self-justifying system of circular logic. But because it is a system specifically designed to do all these things, the pillars of which make necessary unethical and immoral practices on the part of all humanity, and those pillars (debt, usury or interest, theft, slavery, dishonesty, and above all, secularism) being specifically condemned by the Bible I hold to be Truth, that is fundamentally against all that is right.

So, do I think people should have a right to brave the storms in their own homes? Yes. And that's something I'd kill and die for. And for the record, the Constitution agrees with me, and under the principles of that legal document, the highest law of the land, if they want to kick someone off one's property they have two options. 1. Get a warrant for one's arrest. 2. Declare martial law. Outside of those two options they are breaking the law and kidnapping such a person.

The only reason they get away with it is because popular consciousness is so well trained to accept the false dicotemy it never occurs to us to look to the highest laws in the land, we are too concerned with who's financial holdings are at most undue risk.

No harm nor foul.

Quote:

---

Quote:
GALVESTON, Texas - The death toll from Hurricane Ike is remarkably low so far, considering that legions of people stayed behind as the storm obliterated row after row of homes along the Texas coast. But officials suspect there are more victims out there and say some might simply have been swept out to sea.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26765035

I say stay if you want, but you do so at your own peril - do not expect others to risk their lives for calls you made.

Of course the government thinks they are smarter...they are the government.

Growing up on the gulf coast I know we never left, no one did. We saw some rough weather but knew what was coming and were prepped accordingly.

I sure do feel all warm and comfy knowing big bro is planning to usurp my own authority to make calls on whether I stay or go......by any means required. Tax dollars hard at work to enslave the sheep, or cows - whatever floats your boat for terminology.

The illusion of freedom.

Here's an article that looks at why some people stayed behind. I don't disagree with a lot of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0919/p04s04-usgn.html

Anytime the government tells you it's for your own good, head for the hills. You are gonna get screwed and not even kissed first. I think several of us have "VOLUNTEERED" for that.

"The Texas attorney general's office is looking into the legal options available"
At least they got that consideration.

All you people who say let them stay behind and pay for it if they have to rescue them. Heres the truth if im a rescue worker and i see you im going to rescue you, then you pay a fine, all fine and dandy, but what happens if I die. The people are deliberately putting themselves in harms way, and consequently anyone who goes in to save them. No fine is worth peoples life who died tryin to save them. Also im surprised, what has been the common chide of rambo gung ho survivalist. DON'T! Dont put yourselves deliberately in harms way. Prepare your house the best you can then get out. How is it that you being there in your house protect it. You guys are right the goverment shouldn't make you leave. You should be smart enough to leave yourself.

Just my rant but honestly it seems reasonable.

OK,

This is the last time I'm going to say it because I don't want to perpetuate the argument.

Yes it's reasonable that people should be smart enough to leave of their own accord... IF

1. It's an affordable expense.

and

2. The costs do not outweigh the benefits.

You see, you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation. You think you know better than them because of what you see in the media coverage. But you are blind to whatever might be going on that is NOT covered by the media. Not everyone lives in the suburbs in a conventional house. Some live on ranches an they have been ranching in hurricanes and floods for generations on that land. They are there to protect their livelihood. Some people live on high ground that will not flood, and there is no need for evacuation. Some may even be staying behind to be part of the rescue effort...

Some people also do not own televisions, and do not have much contact with neighbors... they might not even know about the storm or the evacuation.

Anyway, I'd refrain from calling people idiots for the choices they make. All you are doing is watching what the media is showing you, and they are showing you what a burden the holders-out are on the SNR efforts and the system of socialized risk as a whole. Why? Because socialism is their agenda.

Also, as for the SAR teams, they chose their line of work, they knew the risks, it was their autonomous choice to get into those situations, just like the choice the government wants to deny the people living in their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proud American

All you people who say let them stay behind and pay for it if they have to rescue them. Heres the truth if im a rescue worker and i see you im going to rescue you, then you pay a fine, all fine and dandy, but what happens if I die. The people are deliberately putting themselves in harms way, and consequently anyone who goes in to save them. No fine is worth peoples life who died tryin to save them.

---

Yes Sir, you are right... IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichov

OK,

This is the last time I'm going to say it because I don't want to perpetuate the argument.

Yes it's reasonable that people should be smart enough to leave of their own accord... IF

1. It's an affordable expense.

and

2. The costs do not outweigh the benefits.

You see, you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation. You think you know better than them because of what you see in the media coverage. But you are blind to whatever might be going on that is NOT covered by the media. Not everyone lives in the suburbs in a conventional house. Some live on ranches an they have been ranching in hurricanes and floods for generations on that land. They are there to protect their livelihood. Some people live on high ground that will not flood, and there is no need for evacuation. Some may even be staying behind to be part of the rescue effort...

Some people also do not own televisions, and do not have much contact with neighbors... they might not even know about the storm or the evacuation.

Anyway, I'd refrain from calling people idiots for the choices they make. All you are doing is watching what the media is showing you, and they are showing you what a burden the holders-out are on the SNR efforts and the system of socialized risk as a whole. Why? Because socialism is their agenda.

Also, as for the SAR teams, they chose their line of work, they knew the risks, it was their autonomous choice to get into those situations, just like the choice the government wants to deny the people living in their homes.

---

Nicov

1. Those that did not have the money or ability to evacuate were offered the opportunity by local authorities and then put up in emergency shelters, so I've got to disagree with your affordable expense comment.

2. As far as costs outweighing benefits, I guess my response would be the same as to #1.

When you say "you are doing what the government does: you are sitting on a high hill somewhere and dictating what the best choice is for the people living in the situation" I have to disagree again. Having been through several hurricanes and a couple of typhoons, and additionally having been involved in the efforts to clean up following a major storms coming through an area, it is not a high hill that my point of view comes from, but rather the first hand knowledge of the devastation and destruction that can befall a person, community, city, or state if they are not prepared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crashdive123

Here's an article that looks at why some people stayed behind. I don't disagree with a lot of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0919/p04s04-usgn.html

---

Excellent article. The CSM generally has top-notch reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by from CSM article

"What's happening in Galveston right now is that people who stayed are putting tarps on their roofs and those who did what the government wanted can't get back to their homes to minimize further damage,"

---

The issue here is to protect the property from seizure. Much of this property will be condemned. The owners will then be required to "clean up" the property. If they don't clean it up, the city, county or state will do it and bill the property owner. When the owner is unable to pay, they will forfeit the property to pay for the clean-up.
Those that stay, can put up the tarps, personally assess the damage, begin repairs or demolition - basically, they will have the on-the-ground intelligence they need to make an informed decision - as well as a leg to stand on when the legal precedings begin.
Or, they can leave and just let the local authorities determine what is best for them.
It will be interesting to see what the insurance companies do - A lot of people who owned property in New Orleans were just SOL and now their property is in the hands of developers.
I am thankful that most people left. For a vast majority, an evac was the right thing. The storm sure wrecked a lot of stuff. The real devastation, however, will come from the banks, insurance companies, lawyers and developers who profit from the suffering of others - after all, they are the ones that got all the Katrina relief money. Post-disaster relief (once the realm of non-profits, like the Red Cross) is now a billion dollar business.

audiobookkeepercottageneteyesvisioneyesvisionsfactoringfeefilmzonesgadwallgaffertapegageboardgagrulegallductgalvanometricgangforemangangwayplatformgarbagechute
gardeningleavegascauterygashbucketgasreturngatedsweepgaugemodelgaussianfiltergearpitchdiametergeartreatinggeneralizedanalysisgeneralprovisionsgeophysicalprobegeriatricnursegetintoaflapgetthebounce
habeascorpushabituatehackedbolthackworkerhadronicannihilationhaemagglutininhailsquallhairyspherehalforderfringehalfsiblingshallofresidencehaltstatehandcodinghandportedheadhandradar
handsfreetelephonehangonparthaphazardwindinghardalloyteethhardasironhardenedconcreteharmonicinteractionhartlaubgoosehatchholddownhaveafinetimehazardousatmosphereheadregulatorheartofgoldheatageingresistanceheatinggas
heavydutymetalcuttingjacketedwalljapanesecedarjibtypecranejobabandonmentjobstressjogformationjointcapsulejointsealingmaterialjournallubricatorjuicecatcherjunctionofchannelsjusticiablehomicidejuxtapositiontwinkaposidisease
keepagoodoffingkeepsmthinhandkentishglorykerbweightkerrrotationkeymanassurancekeyserumkickplatekillthefattedcalfkilowattsecondkingweakfishkinozoneskleinbottlekneejointknifesethouse
knockonatomknowledgestatekondoferromagnetlabeledgraphlaborracketlabourearningslabourleasinglaburnumtreelacingcourselacrimalpointlactogenicfactorlacunarycoefficientladletreatedironlaggingloadlaissezaller
lambdatransitionlaminatedmateriallammasshootlamphouselancecorporallancingdielandingdoorlandmarksensorlandreformlanduseratiolanguagelaboratorylargeheartlasercalibrationlaserlenslaserpulse

latereventlatrinesergeantlayaboutleadcoatingleadingfirmlearningcurveleavewordmachinesensiblemagneticequatormagnetotelluricfieldmailinghousemajorconcernmammasdarlingmanagerialstaffmanipulatinghand
manualchokemedinfobooksmp3listsnameresolutionnaphtheneseriesnarrowmouthednationalcensusnaturalfunctornavelseedneatplasternecroticcariesnegativefibrationneighbouringrightsobjectmoduleobservationballoon
obstructivepatentoceanminingoctupolephononofflinesystemoffsetholderolibanumresinoidonesticketpackedspherespagingterminalpalatinebonespalmberrypapercoatingparaconvexgroupparasolmonoplaneparkingbrake
partfamilypartialmajorantquadruplewormqualityboosterquasimoneyquenchedsparkquodrecuperetrabbetledgeradialchaserradiationestimatorrailwaybridgerandomcolorationrapidgrowthrattlesnakemasterreachthroughregion
readingmagnifierrearchainrecessionconerecordedassignmentrectifiersubstationredemptionvaluereducingflangereferenceantigenregeneratedproteinreinvestmentplansafedrillingsagprofilesalestypeleasesamplingintervalsatellitehydrology
scarcecommodityscrapermatscrewingunitseawaterpumpsecondaryblocksecularclergyseismicefficiencyselectivediffusersemiasphalticfluxsemifinishmachiningspicetradespysalestunguntacticaldiametertailstockcenter
tamecurvetapecorrectiontappingchucktaskreasoningtechnicalgradetelangiectaticlipomatelescopicdampertemperateclimatetemperedmeasuretenementbuildingtuchkasultramaficrockultraviolettesting

сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт

сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт
сайтсайтсайтсайтсайтtuchkasсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайтсайт