I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
September 16, 2005
Should people be forced to evacuate the hurricane devastated areas?
There is one particular issue that I have mixed feelings about and that is the way that people who still live in New Orleans after the hurricane has passed and the process of recovery is beginning are being compelled to give up their weapons and leave their homes.
The force first comes indirectly in the form of preventing food and water from reaching them to threats to put them in handcuffs and removing them, although it is not clear if that threat has actually been carried out.
According to the New York Times officers will search all the houses in both dry and flooded neighborhoods, and no one will be allowed to stay.
Many of the residents still in the city said they did not understand why the city remained intent on forcing them out."I know the risks," said Renee de Pontchieux, as she sat on a stool outside Kajun's Pub in the working-class Bywater neighborhood east of downtown. "We used to think we lived in America - now we're not so sure. Why should we allow this government to chase us out and allow people from outside to rebuild our homes? We want to rebuild our homes."
They are also taking away people's weapons, even if the owners have legal rights to them.
Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
But these evacuation and disarming programs don't seem to apply to certain classes of people.
But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.
On the one hand, I can understand that with armed criminal gangs reportedly wandering around (although I haven't seen much evidence, such as reports of arrests of gang members, that this is a major problem), the police and other security forces patrolling the streets might be nervous about them stealing the residents' weapons, not to mention the risk that with people's nerves on edge, residents might shoot at the police thinking that they were criminals or because they feel they have the right to protect their homes from any intruder, police or otherwise.
But this does raise the question of what happened to the second amendment giving people the right to bear arms, and why gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association have not loudly protested this seeming violation of it. Perhaps there is some ruling by the Supreme Court that says that under a state of emergency the authorities have the right to disarm people. But if legal residents are disarmed while they are in an area where the civil government has broken down, this does make them more vulnerable to criminals.
The other troubling question is whether people like Ms. de Pontchieux should be allowed to take the risk of staying on in their homes if they are in a position to make that decision. After all, we allow people to do all kinds of things that risk their safety. They can go mountain climbing, sail solo in deep ocean waters, hang gliding, smoke, etc. and when they get into trouble, we do not begrudge the rescue efforts. So why shouldn't the people of New Orleans who want to remain be allowed to stay in their homes?
I can understand the humanitarian impulse behind wanting them to leave. With no electricity, running water, or proper sanitation, the risks to them of contracting illnesses from all the filth and debris and pollution may be high. But shouldn't that be their choice, as long as their continued presence does not cause a health hazard or prevent cleanup efforts?
The authorities also say that they cannot cope with having to provide the people who stay with food and security for their safety, but it is not clear to me that the people staying in their homes and businesses asked for these things. If they haven't, then why is it necessary to ask them to leave?
Perhaps the one thing that troubles me most was the original decision by the Mayor of New Orleans to deny remaining residents food and water as a means of coercing them to leave. It cannot be that hard, especially in the US with all its resources, to provide food and water to the estimated 10,000 people still remaining. At most it is a minor expense and inconvenience to the authorities. To me, the right to food and water is so basic that it should never be used as a weapon and we should never deny it to anyone. So I was heartened when Army Lt. General Honore, newly appointed head of the military's Joint Task Force Katrina, immediately ordered the soldiers to not point their weapons at people and countermanded the Mayor's order and gave water and food to the people who remained because he wanted to treat them with the dignity and respect they deserved.
Once again, we are confronted with the thorny question of the right of individuals to be left alone coming into conflict with the needs of the state. There may be no easy answers to such questions but I am concerned that there does not seem to be a serious discussion of them.
POST SCRIPT 1
This week The Daily Show is doing a four part series on evolution. You can see part 1, part 2 , part 3-I, part 3-II and part 4.
POST SCRIPT 2: Private and public relief efforts
Cartoonist and essayist Ted Rall in his article Charities are for suckers puts into words something that has been bothering me, and that is the question of whether private charities are letting the government off the hook for disaster relief.
Comments
Please visit http://shitcanchertoff.com
The premise of the Ted Rall article is absurd. The math is what we need to look at, not the politically-motivated bloviating. If Katrina costs "us" (the people) $200 billion, and there are about 100 million of us paying taxes (probably less than that if we leave out those paying very little federal income tax), then on average each taxpayer will be paying about $2,000 for Katrina-related spending. That's on top of whatever is being chipped in by those of us who have contributed to charity for the victims.
Note that I am leaving out corporate taxes in this calculation. So maybe the number comes down to $1,500 apiece or something.
Now, it would be wonderful if donations would foot the bill for $200 billion for Katrina, but they won't. Donations are just a token compared to what we will pay for government administered "Katrina programs". In fact, if the donations get up there to $1 Billion (and they might), that is exactly 1/2 of 1% of $200 Billion. It's 10 bucks for each of 100 million citizens who might be in a position to donate something. But there is a very real difference in donating versus being taxed. When I donated to the Salvation Army and Red Cross and Humane Society, I had a pretty good idea of what was likely to happen to that money. When I pay taxes, I have NO idea what amount of it is going to be soaked up by bureaucrats, wasted in pork barrel spending, siphoned off by slimeballs, "lost" from an accounting standpoint and "found" by opportunists in government and industry. The other difference is that the donated money will be used quickly, with a minimum of red tape, and it will be given/spent in ways that are appreciated by the recipients --- sending them a message that "we DO care about you" (and we do). Somehow, when government gets involved, the end result of even the most well-meaning efforts at "helping" tends to be delay, hassle, frustration, anger, and even hostility.
So, what Mr. Rall seems be arguing for is taking the same amount of money that is being given willingly as the result of caring, and diverting it through the leviathan black hole that is the Federal Government, sharing it with the lawyers and faceless policy enforcers, and hoping that some significant percentage of it comes out the other end someday and is spent wisely.
We need both charity and tax-funded assistance. We need charity because it is the "right way to do things" (win/win in terms of good feelings and good use) and we need tax-funded assistance because we are not generous enough as a society to do it all voluntarily. So, even though the tax and spend route is fraught with abuse, misuse, and charlatanism --- we (unfortunately) have to step up to that pot, too, and dump money in as taxpayers. But when I dump $100 bucks in the "Katrina tax pot" I do so with extreme reservations, because I have my doubts that it will do as much good as a ten spot that I give to some charity that has a focus, and a real mission to help people --- and, no, I don't care if it is a secular organization like the Red Cross or a religious one like the Salvation Army, or Jerry Lewis, or the radio station that decided to fill some trucks with shoes and bottled water, or whomever. This is no time to be worried about that trivial point.
And corporations, like WalMart for example --- although they had their own flood and hurricane related problems such as 126 stores shut down --- they were there with $17 million bucks and other millions for their employees, and dispatched 2450 truckloads, and donated 22 vacant facilities and many internet ready computers for use during the relief effort, and on and on, before the Federal bureaucrats could even find the right forms in their manuals, stop passing the buck and waiting for decisions from "upstairs", and get off their butts. And with job transfer programs for their WalMart employees to start working in any store nearby where they relocated, extra pay for those unable to work, waiving health care plan fees, and all kinds of community responses where they do business .... they were "all over it"... like NOW!! They, unlike the government, know how to operate in an efficient and decisive way.
Yes, Mr. Rall, the government can do some VERY big things, but it is always going to them barely adequately, and very slowly, and in a way that we have every right to criticize and feel embittered and cynical about. So, to the extent that we CAN figure out ways to cut government out of the action until it proves worthy, then I am all for the private citizens and companies and charities doing more and more and more.
i think that it is best to saty for, thus the government doesnt have to save them....what happens if they want to die in their house,not in a trafic jam or in a car!!! what kind of people are u? well i like ur article
i think that it is best to saty for, thus the government doesnt have to save them....what happens if they want to die in their house,not in a trafic jam or in a car!!! what kind of people are u? well i like ur article
i think that it is best to saty for, thus the government doesnt have to save them....what happens if they want to die in their house,not in a trafic jam or in a car!!! what kind of people are u? well i like ur article