Saturday, August 27, 2011

Can They Do That?

Today's post poses more of a question. A question about whether or not we're being sheep herded into situation under the guise of something being for our own good. And who wants anything for their own good really?

Here's the situation: As you are probably aware (and if you're not aware, how do you do that?!), the east coast is all panicky because of Hurricane Irene that may or may not be coming to town. Yes, I realize that there's a hurricane out there and that it will make contact with land. What kind of contact it makes is yet to be seen. And please remember that we're relying on government employees who seem to specialize in the weather in order for us to make an informed decision. Regular weather forecasters who are not in the government seem to be highly inaccurate when preparing me for whether or not I need a coat. Now you're going to throw the government into that mix? Am I supposed to believe that will make it more effective because everything that government gets into gets more effective? Yeah, no, that doesn't ever happen. But that aside, I'm talking about the mandatory evacuations that are being ordered in various parts of the country that may or may not experience some greater than normal rainfall.

The government is telling you that people that they
have to leave their homes. I'm unaware of anything Constitution-wise that allows for that practice. The government can't tell me to leave me home. Yet when things like this are about to potentially happen, that's what they do. (And before you go off on me about how it's all for safety, allow me to remind you that I have a rather libertarian bent within me. The less government for me, the better. And I'm perfectly OK with things that I might not get because of that.)

I mean, let's say that you don't want to leave your home because a hurricane might be coming and because the government might not have any idea how bad it is going to be and decided to overreact as usual. Not that I need a reason (because it's my house and I don't think I need to justify my rationale), but what if I am worried about looters in an area with no people in their homes and I want to stick around and protect my belongings? (Please note that in this scenario, I also think that I'm not going to be in grave danger if I do. Any danger that may arise, I am willing to deal with on my own. Just because I decide to stay behind, I can't expect to be rescued if need be. If I say I'm on my own and I'm not leaving my house, I mean it. And if I end up being screwed, well, at least that was my choice and the government didn't have anything to do with it.) Is the government really able to tell me that I have to leave? I don't think that they can, even though they do it all of the time. It's a practice that I'm not fond of.

And if you're over there screaming at your monitor "What about children?!", just calm down. I'm getting to that. While part of me really would prefer that even if the adult is going to stay, that the children have to go somewhere safer, part of me doesn't like that at all. Isn't that the government saying that they know what is better for your children that you do? On top of that, we make a lot of rules and a lot of laws and a lot of decision in the name of the "best interest for the children". I'm not so sure that's the best way to run things. Again, I don't want the government making decisions for me and my hypothetical and non-existent children.

Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am, but I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints. (I'm not as interested in them as concurring viewpoints, but I always listen.) I just don't think that a government can legally, under the Constitution,
tell you to leave your home. Sure, they can ask. But I should be able to decline their request without being under fear of arrest. (I have no idea if the government can ask you to leave your home if you live in government housing, though. That might be a gray area.) I'd really be interested to hear this discussed or reported upon somewhere. But since the media sucks (and is currently practically soiling itself over the minute possibility of imagined impending doom), I highly doubt that will ever happen.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content


Ashley said...

Sure. They can order us to leave. And since the OBVIOUSLY always make the best decisions (see their latest credit card statement) we should definitely follow what they say!

In all seriousness, I am torn on this. I want to say it is the citizens own decision, but if they stay, they are relinquishing their rights for help. However, someone would be stupid, need help, not get it, and then sue the city/state. I guess it is a CYA situation for them.

Mare said...

Hey, Ashley.

See, that's what I was thinking as well. That the reason for these "mandatory" evacuations stems from ours being an overly litigious society. I'm perfectly OK with people who decide to stay in situations like that relinquishing their rights for help if things turn ugly. After all, that seems like the most reasonable thing to do. That must be why it's not being done! =)

~ Mary

kcourtsclayton said...

Just found your blog (linked in silenced majority). I know the answer to this question. The mandatory evacuation order means that should you stay in your home and should you be hit by a massive hurricane, "no one will be coming to get you" (as it was reported on the news.) So you don't have to leave but you're on your own.

Mare said...

Hey, kcourtsclayton.

Thanks for clinking a link and finding my blog!

I'm perfectly OK with people staying and not getting help. That's fine with me. But they don't seem to phrase their evacuation orders as such. They seem to say, "You have to get out because we told you so." I'd love it if they would do it the other way.

Thanks again for reading! I totally appreciate it!

~ Mary