Insurgency

[Don John of Austria]

There are between 5000 and 10,000 people in New Orleans who are resisting removal. This resistance has been passive so far, however the Government is now illegally confiscating legally owned weapons there, so what are the odds there is going to be active resistance there? If there is active resistance on what scale do you think it could occur?

[hierochloe]

If there is active violent resistance it will get squashed.

[Lounge Daddy]

a small scale - the number of people left in the city seems to be HUGE the way it is portrayed in the msm (main stream media)
but its only two percent

part of me wants to say "leave em to their stupidity - they are most likely the filthy thugs that are shooting at the resuers anyhow"
...but that would be uncharitable... and the easy answer... and the wrong answer

the charitable Lounge Daddy says - if they dont know anybetter - thats when the people paid to save lives need to step in an get the people who apparently dont know better to get out of the city-turned-sewer
the two percent who dont know better

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Sep 9 2005, 06:50 PM']a small scale - the number of people left in the city seems to be HUGE the way it is portrayed in the msm (main stream media)
but its only two percent

part of me wants to say "leave em to thier stupidity - they are mostly the filthy thugs that are shooting at the resuers anyhow"
but that would be uncharitable

if they dont know anybetter - thats when the people paid to save lives need to step in an get the people who apparently dont know better to get out of the city-turned-sewer
the two percent who dont know better
[right][snapback]717537[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


2 % of 500000 is alot and from what I have seen latly most of the people left are not infact thugs, they are people who where prepared for the storm and who weathered it and just want to stay in there own city. Isn't it your right to stay in your own home if you havn't done anything wrong?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 9 2005, 06:27 PM']If there is active violent resistance it will get squashed.
[right][snapback]717528[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Quite possibly, but it is a big place and a couple thousand people I think could make quite the resistance. Heck there estimated to be fewer than 10,000 insurgents in Iraq.

[Aloysius]

it is not charitable to force people out of their homes, even if it is a dangerous place to be. it is charitable to offer them a way out of the danger, but if they wish to remain with their property despite the danger it is absolutely unjust to remove them from that property.

heck, I would probably rather remain in such dangerous conditions in my own home than go off and be a homeless refugee at the mercy of others. it's a matter of self-sufficiency, and defending one's own private property.

[Don John of Austria]

I agree it is complelty unjust to forcably remove anyone from their own property. I would even go so far as to say they would be morally well within their rights to fight, more than that I would say the custom of our country would also give them that right. But that doesn't mean they will do it or that they will have the means to make a go of it.

[Era Might]

Nobody has a right to kill themselves. There is a legitimate public safety concern about disease spreading throughout the city. The government has a duty to evacuate these people, whether they like it or not.

A lot of them are staying for absurd reasons, such as they won't leave their pets.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:15 PM']Nobody has a right to kill themselves.
[right][snapback]717567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly.

Furthermore, if my dear brother in the Coast Guard gets sick, injured, or God forbid killed, trying to rescue some retard AFTER he had multiple opportunities to evac, I would definitely hold them fully responsible...and I doubt that I would be very forgiving.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:25 PM']Exactly.

Furthermore, if my dear brother in the Coast Guard gets sick, injured, or God forbid killed, trying to rescue some retard AFTER he had multiple opportunities to evac, I would definitely hold them fully responsible...and I doubt that I would be very forgiving.
[right][snapback]717577[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well being evaced doesn't include forcing me to do anything, now does it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:15 PM']Nobody has a right to kill themselves. There is a legitimate public safety concern about disease spreading throughout the city. The government has a duty to evacuate these people, whether they like it or not.

A lot of them are staying for absurd reasons, such as they won't leave their pets.
[right][snapback]717567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Era might I am suprised at you-- chooseing to do something that is unwise is NOT suicide. The Government has a duty to offer evacuation but not to force it. And while I agree that it is disordered to stay simply because you don't wantto leave your pet( however I don't think thats an issue now the government is taking pets now) I don'tthink that the secular government has the rightto decide that.

[Era Might]

[quote]chooseing to do something that is unwise is NOT suicide.[/quote]

In itself, no. There are a lot of non-suicidal unwise things to do.

Staying in a flooded city while the real threat of disease spreads, however, is not one of them.

The government has every right to forcibly remove you from your property, if the circumstances require it. If there is a warrant out for your arrest, for example, you can't claim asylum in your private property.

The government needs to evacuate New Orleans, to protect the citizens against their own stupidity.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:43 PM']In itself, no. There are a lot of non-suicidal unwise things to do.

Staying in a flooded city while the real threat of disease spreads, however, is not one of them.

The government has every right to forcibly remove you from your property, if the circumstances require it. If there is a warrant out for your arrest, for example, you can't claim asylum in your private property.

The government needs to evacuate New Orleans, to protect the citizens against their own stupidity.
[right][snapback]717591[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Warrents are issued for people who have aledgedly broken the law-- which theoreticly at least is based on morality at its core these people have therefore forfieted the right to have asylum on their private property, however that private property is in fact such an assylum is witnessed by the need for a warrent for search and siezure, these people are having their property siezed which is contrary to the constitution further they are being detained and moved without due process of law and for commiting no crime. The Government is out of line here. Lack of wisedom is not a crime.

[Era Might]

Civil law is not solely based on the moral law.

For example, there is no moral prohibition against, say, driving 80 miles instead of 60 miles on the highway. But the government has a right to regulate its own borders, and we are subject to its decisions, particularly in grave matters such as evacuating a disaster-torn population.

[hierochloe]

I heard a report on this topic that said there is no legal way to forcibly evacuate in NO except to condemn the property, which is appropriate considering the safety problem. Do you think they would let people live on a superfund site?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:53 PM']Civil law is not solely based on the moral law.

For example, there is no moral prohibition against, say, driving 80 miles instead of 60 miles on the highway. But the government has a right to regulate its own borders, and we are subject to its decisions, particularly in grave matters such as evacuating a disaster-torn population.
[right][snapback]717603[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote]Civil law is not solely based on the moral law.[/quote] In theory it is driving 60 i supposed to be safer for the general public and therefore morally justifiable.

[quote]But the government has a right to regulate its own borders, and we are subject to its decisions, particularly in grave matters such as evacuating a disaster-torn population.[/quote] I just don't even know what to say here, lets just say that I reject the notion that the right to regulate a borders gives the state the right to confiscate property from law abiding citizens.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:59 PM']I heard a report on this topic that said there is no legal way to forcibly evacuate in NO except to condemn the property, which is appropriate considering the safety problem. Do you think they would let people live on a superfund site?
[right][snapback]717607[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


they did here in houston because it was cheaper than paying them for it, and they are not compensating people for their property they are confiscatng it.

[hierochloe]

Well, that's jacked tbh.

[Jaime]

HOLY carp

Two threads now where DJ and I totally agree.

[kateri05]

at first, DJ, i was with you.

but then, i remembered the moral logic of why you have to obey the gov't underage drinking law: authority comes from God, and the govt has legitimate authority and as long as they are not violating the moral law (and thus God's laws), we are obliged to follow them out of submission to authority, which is ultimately submission to God Himself.

is this situation in some way in violation of the moral law? i'm not sure i see how it is