Looting in New Orleans
So here are some useful remarks and links from Reason.com’s “Hit and Run.” (And, yes, I have sent an additional donation to Mercy Corps, my favorite charity, to which I donate monthly. That in spite of the fact that it seems that a lot of the people in need in New Orleans had plenty of warning and plenty of opportunity to get out of harm’s way.)
You may want to read this.
OK, that appears to have stripped out the link. Let’s try this:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wicked_wish/582898.html
Rothbard would approve! Anarchy is all good!
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I had hoped that President Bush would say out loud what was obvious to me… People cannot rely on government to protect them against all threats. The citizens must take some responsibility for knowing their neighbors, assessing risks, and being prepared. But he didn’t. Instead he said we need the PATRIOT Act, more government employees, and the like.
Now, in the wake of Katrina, the same message pops to mind. This tradgedy may not have been avoidable, but it certainly was predictable – and predicted. That government hasn’t responded as desired was also predictable.
But, naturally, both these things occured during Bush’s “watch”. The next president will be a Democrat, simply by saying “they care more” and it won’t happen on their watch. And, if we are lucky, nothing comparable to 9/11 or Katrina will happen.
How many major cities do we have below sea level? Even a major earthquake in California would not create the logistical problems New Orleans faces as a result of being “under water”.
When will people understand that government cannot protect them from every possible risk? When will government stop promising to do so? (OK, so I have a hunch… when politicians stop wanting more power and people stop wanting to have someone else to blame for their problems.)
Strangely enough, Mister Relph seems to have attended the same classes as Mr Trittin.
He actually wonders why Bush did not claim the “obvious” (sic) i.e. that government is not supposed to be there to serve and protect its citizens against all threats. I see… imagine the scene. Right after the 9/11 attack, G.W appearing on TV saying something like: “My fellow countrymen, it is a sad hour, but the American people cannot expect the government to take care of everything after all, sorry !”
Since he did not say that, Mister Relph argues, he now has to act responsibly: Both things happened during “Bush’s watch” so G.W. Bush is responsible for not predicting Katrina and 9/11… interesting logic. You know what, it is also predictable that Human Rights activists and US diplomats get locked up in Belarusian prisons, it also happens under “Bush’s watch”, does it means that he is responsible for that, too? Or should he say something like: “Oh well too bad, sorry folks, not my problem, take your responsibilities”. I don’t quite follow.
Re: “People cannot rely on government to protect them against all threats. The citizens must take some responsibility for knowing their neighbors, assessing risks, and being prepared.” Ok…so now…how are you , as a US citizen, going to protect yourself against say…Bin Laden? Please advise. Thank you. NV