22nd July 2015, 6:44 PM
I live in a state with a very random sort of natural disaster. Tornadoes are only just barely predictable, in that you can predict when the conditions are right for them. Beyond that, the best you can hope for is a few hour's warning at best. Some have wondered why Oklahomans don't "evacuate" during tornado season, and that's why. Tornadoes just don't have enough lead time to make evacuation a realistic possibility. This is actually a massive improvement on past ability to predict tornadoes (basically your only chance at all was actually seeing one with your own eyes).
The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).
Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.
The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.
I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.
Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.
The other simple matter is tornadoes are VERY pinpoint in their destruction. Those who live in hurricane or earthquake areas aren't familiar with that sort of thing, hence why EVERY tornado commentatorfrom out of state is always amazed at how one side of a street has houses leveled to the ground while the other has completely undamaged houses. That's par for the course. A simple fact is that MOST tornadoes hit nothing but empty plains without hurting anyone (except whatever plants are in the way).
Why do I say all this? To point out that when someone gets hit by a tornado, it's a matter of completely bad luck, terrible luck, an event that can't be blamed on the victim of it. The neighbor who got lucky will almost always try to do SOMETHING to help the neighbor who didn't. Can you imagine if they didn't do that? Can you imagine for a second the neighbor who's house is still standing looking at the neighbor who's house was leveled and just shrugging it off saying "sucks to be them, but I paid my dues"? Of course you can, and of course that's monstrous. A single unpredictable change in the atmosphere 5 mintues earlier, and the other neighbor would be the one with the flattened house. Understanding that basic fact, neighborhoods with such a mix will pull together and support each other after events like this.
The only thing to add is the matter of them having consented to help. That's the sticking point for most libertarians, that they CONSENTED to aiding a neighbor in need rather than being forced by the government to do so. However, at a certain point you have to just consider the hierarchy of needs. The right not to have your aid forced out of you (which in this case, is nothing more than taxes) is simply not nearly as fundamental as the right to not die of exposure and/or starvation. There's a reason Robin Hood is considered a hero after all.
I think what really gets me is how "armchair" any debate over which rights matter comes off. Emotions DO play a part and MUST play a part in deciding this, and when you've got no emotional stake in it, because you've never actually struggled in a real way where society's pressure makes you question whether it's even worth continuing to live day to day or that you might just actually be as worthless as your bank account (you should BE so lucky) says you are.
Discussing issues of morality without any sort of emotional connection to the moral issues at stake is like two immortals discussing just how evil murder REALLY is any way. After all, that person you're deciding to murder just won't shut UP about how much they want to live, so overly emotional about life, aren't they? They clearly aren't looking at life and death with the detached objectivity you are.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)