Do you believe that the government should have the authority to temporarily suspend any of your freedoms when there is an emergency? Please assume that there can be an emergency that every sane person sees as an emergency. The Pacific Palisades fire seems to fit that category.
Edit to correctly ask the question.
The government does have that authority so the question should be: do you believe the government should have that authority?
That is how I should have asked that.
I work with a blind paraplegic woman - a victim of shaken baby syndrome in early infancy. Although the father went to jail for the crime, the motherâs abuse continued. It was mostly emotional (âstupid,â âworthless,â etc, the kind of woman who would marry that kind of man) but occasionally slapping-type blows (child is blind, recall) and once the house was on fire and the mother helped the older sister evacuate, but told my patient, who was playing on the floor, to get out herself by pulling herself with her arms, which she was able to do when she was young. The mother did help eventually, but this was not a wanted kid raised in love.
Sheâs in subsidized housing, has SSI and Medicare, and drives a pretty cool wheelchair gratis taxpayers. She also managed to obtain a bachelorâs degree (more govât help) and now works part time. Her mapping abilities are magical to me, and sheâs shown me the speeds she can hit in her chair. She is bright and proud and likes being part of her community.
Would you have her begging on the streets on a mechanics under-car roller thing, walking with her hands? Like, I canât even process what youâre saying. Genuinely. What would you do with non-criminal, non-malingering people who need help to live with basic dignity? Just hope the Catholic Charities has a wheelchair of some sort in stock and she gets what she gets?
No, I do not.
They can suspend services.
I shared an example of hurricanes earlier. I grew up along the Gulf Coast and have seen my share.
Govt approach here is to apply âmandatory evacuationsâ, but what this means in practice is telling you to get out, or youâre on your own.
Iâm fine with this. I wouldnât expect a firefighter or Sheriff Deputy to swim through floodwaters in ~120 mph winds with downed electrical lines because I changed my mind mid storm (not that a call would go through, but for conversations sake.)
I would have a massive problem with a Sheriff Deputy or Firefighter coming to my home and forcibly removing me prior.
Itâs none of their, or your, business if I ride the storm out. Not your lane.
This is a truly sad story, and one of many that life presents.
I have faith good natured humans would charitably take up her cause. Either individually or via organized groups.
And no, I do not believe anyone should be forced to support.
Iâm going to drop at will again.
I do believe the truly needy are a different case than people who simply make shit decisions, but I will never agree that forcing people to support is the right answer.
You understand that history doesnât support that this would be the case, though, right?
I have lived in Florida since 1953. A hurricane is not near a foul line. Many have participated in many hurricane parties.
Letâs stick with foul lines. The Pacific Palisades fire is closer to a foul line emergency. Do you believe that the government should be allowed to remove some of your freedoms in that case of near total destruction.
Completely agree as would I if you called for less coddling of addicts. Itâs a deadly hobby; fuck around and find out.
I could go on and on and on with truly sad stories. Heartbreaking, not-the-personâs-fault stories. Too many for charities to manage.
At will.
I understand.
I disagree.
My opinion would not change no matter where i live
NoâŠespecially for emergencies
Itâs a matter of principle.
Yes. In the cases where looting can/will occur, I think a curfew is a good idea. Like, get your personal valuables and get out by sundown because thats when the rats come out.
To maintain some semblance of order in that complete disaster area, and make it less likely that innocent people get beaten, robbed or killed, a curfew is a perfectly reasonable limitation of rights.
Itâs always interesting to see regional opinions on these issues.
Not at all an attack but I notice in regions already adapted to greater govt oversight and control than others, the answer to problems tends to be more govt. This, to me, is a slippery slope slanting towards overreach. It almost feels like a trained response to an engrained nanny state.
I realize my view is regional but in the aforementioned hurricane example, certainly in Texas and generally across the south bordering the Gulf, looting is very much an âAt your own riskâ activity.
I donât understand reliance on govt to the point of conceding freedom. A personal view but I would much rather risk encountering looters than have times Iâm allowed to go outside dictated to me. I would feel absolutely neutered. Canât go outside, my ass.
Its really quite sensible. Iâm sure if any palisadians want to stand on a burning pile of rubble with a freedom spreader the lapd will let them.
But its also a matter of letting the police do their actual job with as little confusion as possible.
They need to minimize risk. Best way forward on that is to say âok, at 8:00 pm, all the good citizens go back to your temporary places, and weâll take care of the looters.â .
Its literally what theyâre paid to do. They already got the money. Now its time to earn it.
I know its not enumerated or elucidated in the bill of rights, but if you want to get into a shootout with some meth heads over a burning pile of rubble, by all means, let freedom ring.
Old days story time:
Me & my one buddy used to do heroin. The best place to get the best heroin is the worst place to be, any time of day. So one night weâre on our way to get some dope and the cops light us up. We pull over. He walks up to the window and says âHey guys, I see you here all the time. I know what youâre here for. Weâre not going to arrest you for anything, but you need to know- we find you guys shot dead here a couple times a week. Youâd be smart to just fuck off from this place or have somebody get it for youâ.
And you know what? He was right.
We have every right to be in that place any time we want. No one can stop us.
Doesnât mean we should. BUT we can.
Like, you have a curable illness thatâs 100% transmissible, 100% deadly given 72 hours? Yeah, I can see the government justifiably not allowing that person to leave his house/wherever.
Who decides those statistics?
If we are talking all consuming wild fire, there are no statistics to consider. With diseases and illnesses historical statistics will be far from absolute. NOW Iâm prepared to discuss WHO decides itâs an emergency.
A large chlorine gas emission? Now there is no one to question if that is an emergency.