I was watching CNN and was really sickened by the whining of the journalists, who were shocked that U.S. law required that people who were evacuated at taxpayer expense were being asked to sign a promissory note to reimburse the government for the evacuation, and by the whining of some of the evacuees, who were insisting that they be whisked away in comfort at taxpayer expense. Under the theory that everything should be free, the government has announced that people who visit or live in dangerous places and are evacuated at taxpayer expense will not be charged a penny.
People who go to dangerous places (and Lebanon has been on that list for quite some time, both as a matter of common sense and as a matter of State Department designation) shouldn’t expect to be rescued from danger at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.
What next? Sue the US Government if someone who voluntarily went to a designated dangerous place happens to die before they get evacuated? Or if one of the Marines escorting them out of danger “mistreats” someone?
Give me a break! If someone travels to someplace dangerous doesn’t make contingency plans for getting out – quickly – should not expect the government to move heaven and earth to save them. It seems to me that the very LEAST these people should do is thank – and pay – their rescuers.
Tom, I have to say this is one of the rare times I really disagree with sometime I’ve read on your blog. The government takes enormous amounts of money from a taxpayer over his or her lifetime, usually for programs that are, at best, no better than the alternative or, at worst, make him or her even worse off. I think these people have or will have paid this money back to the state many times over in sales, income, property, and myriad other taxes.
The second point I disagree on is calling Lebanon a dangerous place. Yes, there’s been violence there in the past, but it hasn’t been at war in 15 years (apart from the south I suppose, occupied until 2000). I was there just a few years ago and it felt just as safe, if not more so, than Paris or London. Yes, there was a good chance that hostilities would eventually break out again. But no one, outside of the inner political and military circles in Israel, could have predicted the timing of what’s happening now. We know that a massive earthquake will hit the west coast sometime between tomorrow and 200 years from now, but I wouldn’t call people who are stuck there when it hits foolhardy.
I think there’s a strong case to be made for feeling little sympathy for those who go to places like Iraq or Somalia, where no reasonable person could be unaware that the risk level is very high. But there are so many places in this world that fit the description of Lebanon a week ago – presently stable, neighbouring unfriendly states, violent history – that virtually nowhere outside Western Europe and North America would qualify as safe under those criteria.
Incidentally, I do also think there’s a good case to be made that the government shouldn’t ‘repatriate’ citizens who live in Lebanon (or wherever the case happens to be) full time. Their citizenship could be said to be just a piece of paper. Not that I’m necessarily advocating that, just saying it’s an interesting idea I’ve seen.
Just some food for thought to add to the discussion.
Adam,
“I think these people have or will have paid this money back to the state many times over in sales, income, property, and myriad other taxes.”
You could say that about the recipients of any one-time handout.
“But no one, outside of the inner political and military circles in Israel, could have predicted the timing of what’s happening now. We know that a massive earthquake will hit the west coast sometime between tomorrow and 200 years from now, but I wouldn’t call people who are stuck there when it hits foolhardy.”
I’d call a policy that discourages readiness for low probability or unpredictable disaster foolhardy. Just as it should be up to residents to obtain earthquake insurance it should be up to travelers to obtain travel insurance, if they want it.
Where have you seen the idea that (e.g.) US citizens living in Lebanon should not be allowed to return full time to the US? What is the rationale? Do I misunderstand?
I must be in a contrarian phase.
Tom, I think you are mostly mistaken here, and Adam is right. The only truly legitimate function of government is protection of the rights of its citizens. Why doesn’t this qualify? As Adam points out, Lebanon wasn’t an obviously dangerous place 2 weeks ago (although Adam is wrong on one matter — it is Hezbollah and Iran, not Israel, that planned this war.)
Maybe you (Tom) are arguing that ANY time government provides protective services (domestic police, courts, etc.) the recipients of benefits should pay the direct costs. If so, I’d be agreeable, if this were accompanied by a corresponding cut in everyone’s taxes.
As for taking people out in *comfort* — if stacked like cordwood on the deck of a helicopter or jammed into the hold of container ship isn’t an acceptable level of comfort, the rescuees probably weren’t in sufficient danger to warrant rescue in the first place.
“I think these people have or will have paid this money back to the state many times over in sales, income, property, and myriad other taxes.”
You could say that about the recipients of any one-time handout.
You’re definitely right – I’m just trying to address the argument one point at a time. I’m starting by trying to make the case that I think asking them to repay is redundant because they’ve already paid it in spades. That’s just one aspect of the discussion, which is what I’m trying to address in that sentence.
“I’d call a policy that discourages readiness for low probability or unpredictable disaster foolhardy. Just as it should be up to residents to obtain earthquake insurance it should be up to travelers to obtain travel insurance, if they want it.”
Again, I see your point. I don’t think evacuation insurance exists, probably because we see this as a governmental function (I think this is probably the best argument for getting the state out of the business of evacuating citizens). But my more basic point was that I don’t think it’s fair to view people who went to Lebanon as having taken a big risk in traveling to a dangerous place, because I honestly don’t see Lebanon as having been that dangerous for quite some time now.
“Where have you seen the idea that (e.g.) US citizens living in Lebanon should not be allowed to return full time to the US? What is the rationale? Do I misunderstand?”
I haven’t – sorry, I wasn’t really clear. Actually, I was talking about Canada (I’m Canadian) and one of our Members of Parliament who was saying there should be a distinction between citizens who live in Canada and citizens who live in Lebanon full-time. Not that any of them shouldn’t be allowed to return, but that if you live in Lebanon full-time, it’s a bit much to ask the Canadian government to evacuate you just as they would a Canadian resident caught in the cross-fire.
Charles: All I meant was that in the technical sense, this was Israel’s war insofar as it opted to launch a massive campaign in Lebanon – if Israel had done nothing, there wouldn’t be much going on right now.
I’m staying silent on the question of whether this was justified in response to Hizbollah’s actions; if you like, you can think of it as saying that if X takes Y’s wallet and Y punches X, technically Y is the one who initiated the physical violence. I think (hope) supporters of Israel would see this as a fair analogy and a reasonable explanation of what I mean by Israel was the one that “started” the war. Again, I’m not going to say a word about my own view on that issue.
Charles,
I agree that protection of the rights of its citizens is a government responsibility. But I question whether that responsibility travels with the citizen when they leave the bounds of government control (ie, geographic boundaries of the country). Why is it clear to you?
One problem that makes me think the US government’s responsibility for citizen rights protection ends at the border is mismatched rights. In the US, being gay is a “right”. In Afghanistan, not so much. Who’s laws prevail for a US gay visiting Afghanistan? And if you say the US laws prevail in Afghanistan in that case, what basis do you have for saying that Afghani law shouldn’t prevail on US soil for an Afghani adultress visiting here? It seems to me that wars start this way and it is much better to avoid the problem in the first place by saying protection ends at the border.
Further, its not clear that the evacuation is protecting any government-protectable rights at all. Even in the US, you do not have a “right” to not be the victim of random acts of violence. You have (or should have) the right to protect yourself in such situations, certainly. But there are no airlifts out of inner cities in the midst of gang wars. US citizens on US soil in dangerous situations are by and large expected to get out of harms way on their own, at their own expense. Why should it be different for a US citizen not on US soil?
Thanks for the interesting discussion above. I’ll print these out and try to read them at the gym (while on the stationary bike). If I have anything useful to contribute, I’ll do so after my workout.
Lots of interesting points above. My general view is that when you leave U.S. soil, you leave the protection of the U.S. government and travel at your own risk. If I were to go to Uzbekistan and get in trouble there, would I have a right to demand that the U.S. government fetch me? I don’t see that as reasonable at all. Why should people living in or visiting Lebanon be any different? I would say the same thing about people who might get in trouble in Canada, as well. A legitimate function of the U.S. government is to defend the United States, but not — in my humble opinion — to rescue people from harm outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Actually, you can get evacuation insurance (albeit it’s not easy to get with an armed escort) on the market. And I imagine more would be available on the market if the U.S. government weren’t spending money taken from taxpayers to extract people from risky situations. That strikes me as yet another reason to tell them that they’ll have to pay for the transportation.
Richard: two points. First, I think your definition of rights is confused. My rights (in the sense of natural rights) do not change when I cross a geopolitical border. You seem to be conflating this with whatever a particular government happens to be willing to recognize and defend.
Second, the question “should we impose U.S. laws on foreign countries?” is irrelevant here. (My answer to this irrelevant question: we should not, for exactly the reasons you state, among others.)
The question here is quite different: if American citizens are in danger abroad, does the U.S. gov’t have any responsibility at all to provide even a modicum of protective services? (We’re talking about evacuation only in unsually dire circumstances here.) Well, why not? They are not providing anything else for our tax dollars. When I lived abroad the government certainly taxed me (less, admittedly) and all I seemed to get for it was additional harassment from IRS for trying to invoke their incoherent deductions for those living abroad. I’d think that the least the government can do is provide rescue service for their strayed milk cows in emergencies.
Or to say it more seriously — why shouldn’t government give some minimal protection in emergency to citizens, since it is taxing them and they are not consuming the usual domestic services?
Tom: your example “if I go to country X and get in trouble” also confuses the issue. If you are arrested abroad for possible criminal offenses, you get no representation from the U.S. gov’t; the State Dept. makes this very clear. They’ll send a rep to visit you in prison, and try to make sure you are treated in accord with local law, but you’re basically on your own. And this makes sense — you have the ultimate responsibility, and ability, to see that you follow local rules.
But in the case of some unexpected disaster, over which you have no control, why shouldn’t the U.S. gov’t provide some service? Especially when they are already charging you for it? Certainly there’s no real moral hazard issue here.
Again, we’re talking about rare events, things that are sometimes called “acts of God,” not protecting people from their own obviously risky behavior. This sort of minimal service hardly seems out of line.
Charles,
You’re right that your “natural rights” do not change when you cross borders. You have a natural right to self-defense. But you don’t have a natural right to being rescued by anyone, anywhere, ever. That imposes a duty on someone else and I think this list understands that natural rights depend on not imposing obligations on others. That’s why I assumed you were talking about “man-made” rights.
Governments are formed to defend natural rights. But only within their borders, where they control the definition of “rights” (natural or otherwise) and can bound appropriate “defenses”. It is not my birthright to be defended or protected anywhere I travel by the US government.
You are simply stating your conclusion without arguing for it. Why are the borders the only appropriate limit?
You seem to be saying its a matter of convention. Well, historically, governments have regarded the high seas as appropriate venues for protective actions, e.g. America’s war on the Barbary pirates.
Also, U.S. Embassies are actually part of American territory; a person in an embassy is in fact on U.S. soil. If citizens can at least make their way to an embassy, isn’t it appropriate that they be afforded some protection in emergency?
And I’m curious why your argument only applies at the borders. If a citizen *within* his own country decides to call the police, shouldn’t s/he be presented with a bill afterwards? Why not?
Again, I haven’t argued that the U.S. government should be providing day-to-day protective services everywhere in the world or defending citizens “anywhere they travel.”
Charles,
Borders are the appropriate limit because that is what the government – the entity you seek help from – recognizes. If a government no longer respects recognized borders, it won’t be long before a “border dispute” (aka war) erupts. I think we have covered this ground…
The high seas are a special case, no question, since they are not in any one’s borders. That’s not the case with Lebannon.
Governments are formed to defend (natural) rights within their borders. How the citizens pay for that service is a choice.
As for embassies, they do have Marines present for some level of protection, but I believe protection is primarily the responsibility of the host nation.
Richard — I don’t think the high seas are not an exception to the borders issue. Rather, they show that government isn’t simply a matter of protection of rights inside of a domestic border but rather a matter of protection of rights of those who have constituted the government. Instead, *foreign* borders are the exception…where a second protective agency (government) has authority, the first government relinquishes authority.
I think you are correct that host countries are expected to protect embassies, but this is a side issue. An embassy is not the territory of the host country. The U.S. embassy in Lebanon is no less America than is New York or Montana.
Aand your main point (I think) is: “If a government no longer respects recognized borders, it won’t be long before a “border dispute” (aka war) erupts”
This is again a different issue. Adam and I are not saying governments should impose domestic laws abroad. We’re simply asking why, if an unexpected war erupts in Lebanon, why is it so unreasonable that the U.S. gov’t should evacuate citizens out of harm’s way?
Charles,
And all I (and perhaps others) are saying is why is it so unreasonable to expect those rescued to pay for the rescue?
Richard
Tom, do keep in mind these people being evacuated have paid their more than fair share of taxes, especially if they’re expatriates.
I have been away for a while, so am replying at this very late date.
Richard — it really isn’t so unreasonable to ask them to pay for rescue. But neither is it so unreasonable to argue that they have already paid.
Would you argue that if I remain at home within the U.S. and suddenly require the services of police or some sort of other rescue I should be billed for that too? What’s the difference?
This isn’t an issue I would go to war over (especially since then I’d probably have to be rescued by the government and would be billed for it), but Tom’s original point doesn’t seem at all obvious to me.