Leave Or We'll Drag You Out

Your Mayor will tell (emphasis on tell) you what to do. Trust him or her (they're just like your family). They know what they're doing (history proves it) and have a good plan (just like the last one). He or she knows what's best for you (because you're a moron, you're weak, and you're incapable of responsible decisions). Leave your home or business to the care (or taking) of others. Go to the designated shelter (which may also flood). You will be safe there (among 10,000 others). Don't bring your weapon (others will have them and the stronger ones will keep you safe). Leave your stock of food and water behind (you will share with the stronger ones). You will be protected (until the police leave). Cooperate (or be arrested as a criminal). Don't worry if it turns out badly the President will be blamed.

 

It seems the Governor and the Mayor are not in complete agreement on the Mayor's order to force evacuation of New Orleans.

Mayor, Governor at Odds Over Evacuation

Some people made decisions to prepared for storms, survived the wind and water of this one, held off the hoodlums they preyed on their own in absence of police, can handle the rats and snakes, can withstand the filth and stench, can help clean up, and can recover and move forward.

Now they stand to loose to their own city government by their Mayor's order. Hopefully, their Governor will help them! She certainly should! It's their property and it should be their choice to stay or leave.

By the way, to whom, exactly, do we attribute the phrase "Leave or We'll Drag You Out"? Is that a newspaper article title or an actual quotation?

 

The government, the contractors, the news media, etc. will remain regardless. Are they immune to the risks?

Those who live there and want to stay on their property and take the risk should be permitted to do so.

Many areas don't have standing water. Many people have a supply of water and food. Electricity is not needed for survival. Long ago people didn't even have sewage collection or treatment.

Disease is not everywhere but there's a risk of it anywhere. In a refugee facility of thousands of closely spaced persons any contagious disease would likely spread very quickly from person to person.

People in their own homes are not slowing down anyone from cleaning up or rebuilding. In fact, their able to clean up and rebuild their own homes and help others as well. People taking care of themselves are that many fewer people that have to be cared for elsewhere.

Let the people make their own choice and live or die with it.

 

House To House: Evacuating New Orleans



Police and soldiers tried to coax the remaining holdouts to leave storm-shattered New Orleans as grim reports of those unable to evacuate started to emerge. Authorities have ordered 25,000 body bags.

Those who want to stay in their own homes and fend for themselves are being threatened at gunpoint by their police to leave.

Ask yourself if this is want you'd want in your own situation.

 

We often, in our military civil affairs operations, in other countries during war try to help local people organize themselves at the hamlet, village, and town level to deal with their own security, to improve their living conditions, to address basic health concerns including sanitation, etc. These are often countries where the normal standard of living is far below ours and yet people their have managed to survive. We have a lot of knowledge and expertise in these areas. Perhaps we - through our government and other agencies - should disperse teams into the neighborhoods of New Orleans to help people help themselves especially where structures are still standing largely unharmed. Surely, Americans are as intelligent, strong, motivated, and capable as those people of foreign countries we try to help with these matters. Let us learn to deal more effectively with problems at the local level. Let's use the example of those who are prepared, who are willing to stand their ground, and who can survive as positive examples. Let's not misrepresent their "stubbornness" as "stupidity" when it is basically an American virtue to tough it out through adversity and meet its challenge. Our government - the people we control - needs to support us and not force us out of our homes because it would be "easier" for the government to deal with the issues.

 

Last Sweep Before Forcible Evacuations



Customs agents secure a building in downtown New Orleans.

Will those taking these photographs also be forced to leave at gun point like criminals?

When it's all done there will be all kinds of people left in New Orleans except individual citizens who want to stay.

This is a misuse of the government's emergency power in the name of public safety. It is legal - by recent law and court rulings - but it is not appropriate for the situation nor consistent with American tradition nor something that only a few generations ago would have been completely unacceptable.

Likewise, the militarization of civilian law enforcement would have been a major concern.

 

Forced evacuations, curfews, commandeered property, etc. have been increasingly ruled legal in recent times. Attitudes have changed as people look to higher levels of government for solutions to all things and slowly give away their freedom. The protection of the common good is the valid justification for actions of government in response to emergencies and, in such cases, some civil liberty is, understandably, temporarily put aside. We would rightly expect the government to do this to restore order, to prevent lawlessness, to assist people in need, etc. We would expect military martial law to be imposed if civil authorities refused or were not able to respond.

The difference, however, in older times and now lies in "common" good being expanded to "individual" good. Government has greatly expanded their action to include justification for individual good as they determine it to be. They are not justified to misuse this power just because there is a state of emergency. Individual civil liberties are only to be restricted to the extent and for the duration necessary for the common good in dire emergencies. Otherwise, respect of an individual's right - regardless whether right or wrong - to make decisions about themselves, their families, and their property should be paramount above that of any government bureaucrat. A state of emergency requiring some civil liberties to be suspended should not be taken to suspend any or all for which their is no true urgent common good to be served.

If people want to stay on their property and in their community during or after a natural disaster and they are not causing measurable harm to anyone else then the government has absolutely no business making them leave even if future harm may come to these persons. Justifications can always be fabricated by applying localized problems to broader areas, by claiming it is "unsafe" or "unhealthy", or by claiming individuals may interfere with government actions. The "public health emergency" is the tactic being used in this case. What exactly is that true health hazard and are all those government and private workers in the city not also exposed to it? Protecting us from ourselves is not the role of government.

In the case of New Orleans, people are painting a picture of "gloom and doom" for anyone staying behind. The government wants to force survivors to leave against their will for their individual good when they pose no threat to anyone else and are not interfering with any rescue or recovery operations. The government should, instead, respect these persons determination, resourcefulness, and decisions. They should work for them to help them in the manner they have chosen.

At the same time the city is threatening at gun point to force people out it is bringing in large numbers of people to work in the "unsafe" and "unhealthy" areas. The city will be swarming with all manner of government and private workers. The remaining resisdents will soon, if not already, be greatly outnumbered.

It is unfortunate the city was not as concerned, willing, or able to deal with maintaining order and subduing the thugs that roamed the city for a while as they now seem to be about forcing those good citizens who survived the storm in the shelter of their own homes to leave.

Legalities often replace commone sense these days and the law is used to justify whatever is desired despite original intentions of the people.

Ask yourselves if this is want you want from your city, county, state, or federal government. Would you rather they respect your choices with respect to your own well being? Would you rather they concentrate on helping you protect your property than make you leave it? Would you rather than not come to your home at gun point and make you leave as if you were a criminal? If these things don't concern you, then don't bother preparing for the next disaster by stocking emergency water, food, supplies, ammunition, etc. Instead, just proceed directly to your nearest "safe" government operated shelter and turn yourselves over to their fair wiser decisions.

 

Officer: Some Holdouts 'Delirious'


Resident sits on a balcony in New Orleans' French Quarter.

This lady looks perfectly normal to me! The greatest hazard she's facing right now, aside from forced evacuation at gun point, is smoking that cigarette. She's sitting high and dry watching what's happening below. Her area was never flooded. She's not dying of disease. She's not interfering with any rescue or recovery operations.

But, "for her own good", the city wants to haul her off to a "safe" refugee center. She "could" become a problem. She must comply because the city has the "legal" authority.

Perhaps bureaucrats fell obligated to exercise authority when it's easier especially if they believe they might be under scrutiny for not doing they're job during more difficult times.

New Orleans Evacuation Nears Completion

That, Madam, is the way it needs to stay because the state of emergency does not justify removing every resident who wants to stay and isn't causing any problem.

Will the City Attorney be among those forced to evacuate to avoid exposure to the "toxic" flood water?

 

Not Going Anywhere



A New Orleans resident reads 'The Art of Doing Nothing.'

Police, soldiers seek to evacuate New Orleans holdouts; authorities find fewer bodies than feared

These are two more of those residents getting in the way of rescue and recovery in New Orleans.

The City believes they must be removed at gun point by civilian law enforcement officers dressed out for "special operations warfare".

 

Not Going Anywhere



A man moves water-damaged items near New Orleans.

This fellow is cleaning up a small little corner of New Orleans.

The Mayor believes he's in the way and he has to be forced out of town for "his own good". Toxic water, dead bodies, rats and snakes, fire, etc. is everywhere! Everyone - well except of course an army of government and private workers - must leave because it's not "safe"! The "holdouts" are "delirious" and can't fend for themselves. They might get sick and die.

This fellow doesn't seem "delirious" to me. He's just getting on about the business of cleaning up. Let him do it!

I like that American flag on top of the car's hood! That's the spirit we want to see!

 

As usual, the government's solution to criminal activity is to control - or confiscate - weapons from everyone. Of course, it's easier to do that from compliant persons than it is from the criminals. The false premise is that government - through law enforcement officers - are the only ones that should be armed and the only ones who can protect us. The false hope is that there will be one right outside your door to protect you and your property when, and if, you need it.

This is exactly how good people end up being left defenseless in times of their greatest need.

Let the people be armed if they wish to be. Let the people stay in their homes and neighborhoods if they wish to do so.

 

A recent public poll on MSNBC - one of those non-scientific types - asked one question and gave two choices:

Should New Orleans residents be required to leave the city?

1. Yes, it's for their own good and will speed up recovery.

2. No, their reasons for staying, whether it's fear of looting or just a sense of security at home, are valid.

Right now, the first answer is ahead by 74% which reflects how far most people have slipped in their thinking about this matter. It is very sad that so many people can not see what's happening here in this specific situation.

I often now I'm right when I'm in the minority! It strengthens my resolve.

What's wrong with this poll other than the usual loaded questions and answers? Note the "Yes" answer is "for their own good" AND "will speed up recovery". The "for their own good" should be made by their "own" choice. The "will speed up recovery" suggests it's necessary "for their own good" but it's not even connected. As you can plainly see, if you take a close look, many of those who don't want to be "rescued" don't need to be and are doing just fine on their own. They're not in any one's way are aren't going to be.

Contrary to the news media forecast of "gloom and doom" people will survive and recover from this disaster more quickly than they give credit. Contrary to the projection that people are helpless, delirious, and incapable of making rational decisions, they most certainly did, are, and will do so.

The fact is, we should all, first and foremost, respect the will of individual persons to do as they choose, to fend for themselves if they wish, and to protect themselves, their families, and their property as they see fit so long as they are not causing any one else harm. The fact is, we should never, force any one to do anything unless it truly is for the "common good" in a "state of emergency" that mandates each specific action taken.

I'll guess that I'm among the strongest supporters of lawful government on this BaptistBoard. I'm not among those who constantly blame our government for everything that goes wrong. I, generally, support our elected leaders in the difficult execution of their jobs on our behalf. I've been both a Soldier and a Policeman in my earlier years. I have a great deal of respect for both professions. I'll defend them to the hilt when justifible. I've had to do forced entries and extractions. I've had to subdue violent violators of the law. I've had to deal with all the normal very unpleasant situations they face. I've been at risk for those who have no regard for the law. I will always have a close personal affilation with my brothers and sisters in both the military and the police.

It is because of these experiences, more so than it would be without them, that I would hate to be faced with an order to remove a fellow peaceful citizen from their own property when there was no justifiable cause to do so. I regard a person's home as their own. I regard a person's choices for self survival their own. I respect the individual as the primary power in this country.

There does come a time when "common good" in a "state of emergency" mandates the invasion of one's individual rights but this isn't one of them. If criminals were using your home and subduing them required you leaving that would be a reason. If a war was being fought in your neighborhood and removing you was necessary to pursue the enemy that would be a reason. If going through your property to get to another's were necessary to deal with an emergency that would be a reason. You having survived a natural disaster in the shelter of your own home is not a valid reason. The law is being misused when that's done.

Going after the criminals and restoring order is the mission the local law enforcement officers should have been, and probably still should be, most concerned about. Controlling and limiting access by non-resisdents makes sense for the time necessary. Helping survivors maintain security makes really good sense.

We disparately need to get to the point in this big country of thinking in terms of localized - at the neighborhood level - response to emergencies because without it we will always been very unpreapared to deal with them. In the case of a war, a major natural disaster, or a man-made accident the local, state, and federal government are not going to be able to provide the extent and quality of assistance we think they should. We must learn to deal with it ourselves where we live. We must be able to defend ourselves, organize our response, and protect our property. We must assume the primary responsibility for dealing with clean up and recovery.

Ask yourselves if you want your Mayor to decide what best "for your own good" and force you to do it. I do not! In fact, I don't trust most of the politicians I know to make any decisions for me. Ask yourself if you want to keep those sacred rights to yourself even in, and especially in, a "state of emergency" where you have to take care of yourself, your family, and your property. I do!