Skip to main content

Mandatory Evacuations: Natural Disasters Yielding "Compassionate" Government Overreach

Is anyone else repulsed by the phrase mandatory evacuation?

In the weeks surrounding the Caribbean's most recent bouts with hurricanes and tropical storms, a phrase that has become almost numbly parroted across the airwaves and during town hall meetings has been that of mandatory evacuations.


In these cases, public officials determine that the forecasted calamities are so threatening as to merit threatening their residents in their own way, by way of jail time or forced removal, if they refuse to vacate their homes and flee to a neighboring region of permissible habitation beyond the scope of their forecast models.

Sadly, this appears to only set further precedent by which government actors, seemingly always bursting with the warmest of intentions, will continue to encroach upon your personal liberties in pursuit of their own myopic agendas of righteousness and life well-lived.

The Weather Channel has even issued reports of police in Deerfield Beach, Florida, arresting homeless people and blocking access roads as part of mandatory evacuations.

If government can reach into your home and physically pull you out under pretense of your own protection, what will stymie its agents' further violations of individual freedom?

Where exactly is the limit of what government can and cannot do?

If people refuse to evacuate their homes when they are likely to face devastation or even sure loss of life, they are taking responsibility for themselves, whether intelligently or by default.

A mandatory evacuation implies that police officers might engage in mass arrests of those who elect to stay behind, perhaps due to their desire to protect their homes, to weather the storm or because they are simply unwilling to evacuate.

The potential reasons are nearly infinite.

The mandatory evacuation is a rather new post-Hurricane Matthew policy which merely serves the bureaucrats whose administrations might otherwise appear responsible for the deaths of dozens, hundreds or thousands of their residents who elected to ignore the warnings.

Is this sufficient to warrant an uncompromising order to require everyone to leave his or her home?

Are we free individuals or are we subjects of the state?

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland fought ardently in favor of the former, the cornerstone of freedom and the classic American ethos, issuing this statement following his veto of a mere $10,000 appropriation bill for the distribution of seed grain to farmers in certain counties of Texas that had suffered from drought:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."

In the face of mounting resentment for political inactivity, President Cleveland remained steadfast to his principles, embodying every inch of yet another one of his under-appreciated quotes:

“What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?”

President Grover Cleveland was a man of principle who might well serve his political legatees, if only they observed the portents of history.

Unfortunately, there are plainly far too many eyes on mainstream and social media for the modern bureaucrat to escape the limelight.

Commensurately, there exists this popular perception that there are simply no excuses for the almighty United States to refuse disaster relief to any shore, nook or cranny of the roughly four million square miles which comprise its borders.

The blind supporters of government aid are also conveniently blind to the limits of the government's budget, the ways in which it distributes capital, the long-run economic ramifications of government intervention, and the bleakness of the emerging national debt crisis.

So when government acts, it does so under the veil of compassion, dressed in thousand-dollar three-piece Brooks Brothers suits, at the applause of the hype-addicted media and the naive populace.

Ultimately, you know you have a problem when freedom and mandatory evacuations find a way to coexist in popular culture.

It is truly a pathetic day in America when you literally cannot stay home without breaking the law, and an even worse one when this is enforceable through the implied support of that entire nation.

This is precisely how the Orwellian slogan freedom is slavery creeps into our world, not overnight and brutishly, but incrementally and with the unanimous endorsement of the unknowing slaves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters. 

In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity. 

Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility. 

Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue.

What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the final keystro…

One of Every Three American Adults is a Criminal

Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal posted an article on the growing epidemic of criminal records. The article reports that nearly one out of every three American adults has a criminal record — a statistic corroborated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose records show 77.7 million individuals on file in the organization's master criminal database. Is this an indication of a society which is becoming more violent and criminal, or of one which is becoming ever-populated with needless and overreaching laws, ordinances, and regulations? In a country whose growing majority depends upon government for salary or entitlements, this is indeed the mechanism through which the dependency is enabled. Some are apparently more than willing to surrender increments of freedom for the promise of free stuff.    

Along with the extensive and pervasive development of laws in the United States, their execution has become more vile and horrid; and the experience of police brutality, along wit…