Hurricane Katrina; Is the U.S. responding fast enough?

[Danoff]

All I know is that when I'm starving and you're standing in between of myself and a snickers bar, which you don't need and is the only way for me to survive, is that I'll go through you if I have to.

That gives you the morality of an animal.

 

[Famine]

That's like saying "So Californians must pay for people who choose to live in a prime terrorist target?"

Not really. Terrorism is an example of man's inhumanity to other men. Living on a fault line, or in the Ring of Fire, or in Tornado Alley you KNOW that you're going to get hit by an earthquake or tornado sooner or later. Just like when you live 6-15 feet below sea level, you're going to get flooded.


Our government is building houses in floodplains. Flood plains get their name because they are plains near rivers which, periodically, flood. If you live there, you're GOING to get flooded. There's no "if" or "but" about it. It's a perfectly predictable ecological event. Anyone who goes to live there knows that they will indeed be flooded.

But it's okay, because everyone else who is prepared and hasn't chosen a ridiculous place to live can pay for them when they finally realise that "it won't happen to me" can, will and just has...


I'll ask again. At what point does giving someone "stuff" because they opted to live in a dangerous place become silly? When it's a city of 500,000 people living below sea level in a hurricane track it's fine, apparently. What if it's a town of 50 people who choose to live on top of a fault line? When their houses are destroyed by an earthquake, should the taxpayers give them money/stuff to rebuild (probably in exactly the same place), or are they just a bunch of crazy people for living on a fault line? How about one guy who builds his house in a volcano caldera? When his house gets levelled by lava, should the taxpayers give him more money/stuff to rebuild (probably in exactly the same place), or is he just a lone nutter who should be in a secure unit somewhere?

Is it impossible for a half million people to be wrong?

There are very few regions in the U.S. that are not subject to some sort of natural disaster:

Northwest: Volcanic region
West Coast: Active seismic region
Western forest and plains: Wildfires
Texas: Tornados and hurricanes
Southern Midwest: Tornados and river flooding
Northern Midwest: Severe winter storms
Gulf Coast: Hurricanes
Southern East Coast: Hurricanes
Northeast: Severe winter storms
Alaska: Active seismic region

So everybody who lives in those areas has made "wrong choices"? The Oklahoma town that is demolished by a tornado is full of people who simply chose the wrong place to live, so screw 'em?

Not at all. If you want to help them, go ahead. But if you DON'T want to help them, that should also be fine. But it isn't. You help them even if you don't want to because someone thinks it's fine to take what's yours off you and give it to someone else.


This all boils down to one thing. No-one has any right to take anything from anyone else. If you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

Now, would I steal to survive? You bet - but when the dust settled I'd be back round with the cash.

Would I kill or injure someone else in order to steal to survive? Probably. But I'd be dead wrong for doing it.

 

[ledhed]

And I'll be sitting down next to my snickers bar with a nice remington 1100 and some soboted hp slugs just waiting for someone to come take my stuff....crazy thing is if you just walk up and say " can I have a snickers " ...then its here you go ..do you want another one ? or if I dont have one I'll help you find some. But come and try to take it ? I'll blow your brains out . Strange....

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought I would post this article from the Washington Post. Here is the link but I will paste it in since it wants registration.

Money Flowed to Questionable Projects
State Leads in Army Corps Spending, but Millions Had Nothing to Do With Floods

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in use by barges traveling between the Port of New Orleans and the Mississippi River.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Yesterday, congressional defenders of the Corps said they hoped the fallout from Hurricane Katrina would pave the way for billions of dollars of additional spending on water projects. Steve Ellis, a Corps critic with Taxpayers for Common Sense, called their push "the legislative equivalent of looting."

Louisiana's politicians have requested much more money for New Orleans hurricane protection than the Bush administration has proposed or Congress has provided. In the last budget bill, Louisiana's delegation requested $27.1 million for shoring up levees around Lake Pontchartrain, the full amount the Corps had declared as its "project capability." Bush suggested $3.9 million, and Congress agreed to spend $5.7 million.

Administration officials also dramatically scaled back a long-term project to restore Louisiana's disappearing coastal marshes, which once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans. They ordered the Corps to stop work on a $14 billion plan, and devise a $2 billion plan instead.

But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.

"The project manager for the Great Pyramids probably put in a request for 100 million shekels and only got 50 million," said John Paul Woodley Jr., the Bush administration official overseeing the Corps. "Flood protection is always a work in progress; on any given day, if you ask whether any community has all the protection it needs, the answer is almost always: Maybe, but maybe not."

The Corps had been studying the possibility of upgrading the New Orleans levees for a higher level of protection before Katrina hit, but Woodley said that study would not have been finished for years. Still, liberal bloggers, Democratic politicians and some GOP defenders of the Corps have linked the catastrophe to the underfunding of the agency.

"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."

That may be true. But those powerful people -- including former senators Breaux, Johnston and Russell Long, as well as former House committee chairmen Robert Livingston and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin -- did get quite a bit of what they wanted. And the current delegation -- led by Landrieu and GOP Sen. David Vitter -- has continued that tradition.

The Senate's latest budget bill for the Corps included 107 Louisiana projects worth $596 million, including $15 million for the Industrial Canal lock, for which the Bush administration had proposed no funding. Landrieu said the bill would "accelerate our flood control, navigation and coastal protection programs." Vitter said he was "grateful that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee were persuaded of the importance of these projects."

Louisiana not only leads the nation in overall Corps funding, it places second in new construction -- just behind Florida, home of an $8 billion project to restore the Everglades. Several controversial projects were improvements for the Port of New Orleans, an economic linchpin at the mouth of the Mississippi. There were also several efforts to deepen channel for oil and gas tankers, a priority for petroleum companies that drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."

Overall, Army Corps funding has remained relatively constant for decades, despite the "Program Growth Initiative" launched by agency generals in 1999 without telling their civilian bosses in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.

In fact, more than any other federal agency, the Corps is controlled by Congress; its $4.7 billion civil works budget consists almost entirely of "earmarks" inserted by individual legislators. The Corps must determine that the economic benefits of its projects exceed the costs, but marginal projects such as the Port of Iberia deepening -- which squeaked by with a 1.03 benefit-cost ratio -- are as eligible for funding as the New Orleans levees.

"It has been explicit national policy not to set priorities, but instead to build any flood control or barge project if the Corps decides the benefits exceed the costs by 1 cent," said Tim Searchinger, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense. "Saving New Orleans gets no more emphasis than draining wetlands to grow corn and soybeans."

 

[///M-Spec]

If you don't agree with the way democracy works in America, or what people deem worth spending tax payers $$ on, too bad for you.

So an American who disagrees with his government should just shutup or leave. Too bad if they disagree. I see.

Therefore I would conclude that logically means a non-American like yourself who disagrees with how American democracy works should just shut the hell up too, right? After all, if American citizens should have no say in how their democracy works, non-Americans should be treated with even less respect.

Sounds like you fully support everything the world hates about America. Good for you.

This all boils down to one thing. No-one has any right to take anything from anyone else. If you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

Now, would I steal to survive? You bet - but when the dust settled I'd be back round with the cash.

Would I kill or injure someone else in order to steal to survive? Probably. But I'd be dead wrong for doing it.

Very well said. I would personally stop short of hurting someone if I personally needed food... but I honestly don't know what I would do in a life-death situation involving my wife or child.


M

 

[FoolKiller]

Very well said. I would personally stop short of hurting someone if I personally needed food... but I honestly don't know what I would do in a life-death situation involving my wife or child.

I agree. I think it is too easy for us to sit here and judge/support the looters when we don't actually know what we would do in that situation. We think we know but until you are in a situation where your only concern in the world is staying alive I don't think any of us can say what we would or wouldn't do.

This is why I have stayed out of the looting debate. While anyone taking non-food items is definitely criminal I cannot judge those taking food because I do not know what I would do. It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't steal or that I would try to pay the person back if I did, but do I know that? No. Life and death situations change mindsets and opinions and make you see things in a different way.

 

[Danoff]

This is why I have stayed out of the looting debate. While anyone taking non-food items is definitely criminal I cannot judge those taking food because I do not know what I would do. It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't steal or that I would try to pay the person back if I did, but do I know that? No. Life and death situations change mindsets and opinions and make you see things in a different way.

Some of us understand ourselves enough to know what we would do in those situations. The looters who are taking perishables from nearby stores are breaking the law, but they're not immoral - at least not in my mind - because the stores would just throw it away anyway. It's essentially garbage.

The looters stealing inventory that could be sold later are criminals. I think we all agree.

But if someone in Houston is starving (which is not the case due to charity), then they would not be moral to hold up a convenience store to get some food. That would be an immoral action... the response of an animal.

We are animals, certainly, but allowing yourself that response makes you a detriment to civilization.

 

[ledhed]

I thought I would post this article from the Washington Post. Here is the link but I will paste it in since it wants registration.

Money Flowed to Questionable Projects
State Leads in Army Corps Spending, but Millions Had Nothing to Do With Floods

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in use by barges traveling between the Port of New Orleans and the Mississippi River.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Yesterday, congressional defenders of the Corps said they hoped the fallout from Hurricane Katrina would pave the way for billions of dollars of additional spending on water projects. Steve Ellis, a Corps critic with Taxpayers for Common Sense, called their push "the legislative equivalent of looting."

Louisiana's politicians have requested much more money for New Orleans hurricane protection than the Bush administration has proposed or Congress has provided. In the last budget bill, Louisiana's delegation requested $27.1 million for shoring up levees around Lake Pontchartrain, the full amount the Corps had declared as its "project capability." Bush suggested $3.9 million, and Congress agreed to spend $5.7 million.

Administration officials also dramatically scaled back a long-term project to restore Louisiana's disappearing coastal marshes, which once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans. They ordered the Corps to stop work on a $14 billion plan, and devise a $2 billion plan instead.

But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.

"The project manager for the Great Pyramids probably put in a request for 100 million shekels and only got 50 million," said John Paul Woodley Jr., the Bush administration official overseeing the Corps. "Flood protection is always a work in progress; on any given day, if you ask whether any community has all the protection it needs, the answer is almost always: Maybe, but maybe not."

The Corps had been studying the possibility of upgrading the New Orleans levees for a higher level of protection before Katrina hit, but Woodley said that study would not have been finished for years. Still, liberal bloggers, Democratic politicians and some GOP defenders of the Corps have linked the catastrophe to the underfunding of the agency.

"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."

That may be true. But those powerful people -- including former senators Breaux, Johnston and Russell Long, as well as former House committee chairmen Robert Livingston and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin -- did get quite a bit of what they wanted. And the current delegation -- led by Landrieu and GOP Sen. David Vitter -- has continued that tradition.

The Senate's latest budget bill for the Corps included 107 Louisiana projects worth $596 million, including $15 million for the Industrial Canal lock, for which the Bush administration had proposed no funding. Landrieu said the bill would "accelerate our flood control, navigation and coastal protection programs." Vitter said he was "grateful that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee were persuaded of the importance of these projects."

Louisiana not only leads the nation in overall Corps funding, it places second in new construction -- just behind Florida, home of an $8 billion project to restore the Everglades. Several controversial projects were improvements for the Port of New Orleans, an economic linchpin at the mouth of the Mississippi. There were also several efforts to deepen channel for oil and gas tankers, a priority for petroleum companies that drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."

Overall, Army Corps funding has remained relatively constant for decades, despite the "Program Growth Initiative" launched by agency generals in 1999 without telling their civilian bosses in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.

In fact, more than any other federal agency, the Corps is controlled by Congress; its $4.7 billion civil works budget consists almost entirely of "earmarks" inserted by individual legislators. The Corps must determine that the economic benefits of its projects exceed the costs, but marginal projects such as the Port of Iberia deepening -- which squeaked by with a 1.03 benefit-cost ratio -- are as eligible for funding as the New Orleans levees.

"It has been explicit national policy not to set priorities, but instead to build any flood control or barge project if the Corps decides the benefits exceed the costs by 1 cent," said Tim Searchinger, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense. "Saving New Orleans gets no more emphasis than draining wetlands to grow corn and soybeans."

Maybe Arwin will actually read this and learn something about how the states controll levy repair and construction. why didnt the State make the levy a priority for funding ? And also make the protection level higher ? someone should ask them . its not like they will be busy with barges anytime soon .

I'm sorry but I do not look at empying a store of perishable items and water after a disaster as "looting" to me its survival....but carrying off a plasma tv and emptying the sports section of walmart ? Pass me the ammunition I got me some free range looters to bag . Some common sense is in great demand here . If I am a police officer or a Sherriff I open the store and hand out the goods MYSELF to preserve order and to help out in the emergency .

 

[Swift]

Danoff, Foolkiller, well said. If I saw some food and my family was starving and I could take it without bringing physical harm to anyone, I'm not sure what I would do. But I would certainly contemplate it.

 

[smellysocks12]

That gives you the morality of an animal.

That's right, in that way people are the same way as animals. You would too, it's easy to say you wouldn't ignore your personal morals when not facing death and chewing on a hamburger.

 

[smellysocks12]

And I'll be sitting down next to my snickers bar with a nice remington 1100 and some soboted hp slugs just waiting for someone to come take my stuff....crazy thing is if you just walk up and say " can I have a snickers " ...then its here you go ..do you want another one ? or if I dont have one I'll help you find some. But come and try to take it ? I'll blow your brains out . Strange....

Exactly, but fact is that the owners of the goods in the areas where people will be looting aren't there. There is nobody to ask whether they can take it or not. So then you're just going to take it. Of course a police officer can't tell you whether it's ok to take it or not because he isn't the owner either.


Of course you should ask anyone whether it's ok to take it when they're there to ask them. People robbing other people from their food because they're starving are criminals, but people taking food from stores while the owner fled, I can't blame them for doing so.

 

[Swift]

Exactly, but fact is that the owners of the goods in the areas where people will be looting aren't there. There is nobody to ask whether they can take it or not. So then you're just going to take it. Of course a police officer can't tell you whether it's ok to take it or not because he isn't the owner either.
.

You're funny! A cop can't tell if STEALING from someone else is wrong? Yeah, he/she really can. That's one of the main jobs for a cop isn't it?

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course you should ask anyone whether it's ok to take it when they're there to ask them. People robbing other people from their food because they're starving are criminals, but people taking food from stores while the owner fled, I can't blame them for doing so.

And if I were the owner and saw my store being looted on TV you can believe I will get a copy of that tape and demand a police investigation. I would even offer a reward. If the person were to offer repirations then I would not press charges, but by repirations I mean paying for the stuff they took and anything they damaged or returning the stuff in the same condition it was when they took it.

 

[smellysocks12]

And if I were the owner and saw my store being looted on TV you can believe I will get a copy of that tape and demand a police investigation. I would even offer a reward. If the person were to offer repirations then I would not press charges, but by repirations I mean paying for the stuff they took and anything they damaged or returning the stuff in the same condition it was when they took it.

If people take food from your store because they have no other way to feed themselves in that location, and you would try and sue them for doing so? That would make you an inhumane pig who should end up in a situation like that some day. I am talking about the ones taking what they need, not the ones walking out of stores with plasma tv's.

 

[Zardoz]

First axe-blow to Brown's neck:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9266986/

They'll finish the decapitation later...

 

[FoolKiller]

If people take food from your store because they have no other way to feed themselves in that location, and you would try and sue them for doing so? That would make you an inhumane pig who should end up in a situation like that some day. I am talking about the ones taking what they need, not the ones walking out of stores with plasma tv's.

For someone who said they would be willing to kill another human for food you are quick to call people inhumane pigs.

They damaged MY property and stole MY property. Say I did have compassion on them and didn't blame them for stealing my food, who is paying for the damage to my storefront, store room door, and anything else that gets broken?

Besides I said that if they offered recompensation that I would not press charges. All I want is for them to pay for the goods the same they would have done had they just come in on any other day. Being poor is not an excuse for stealing food because they don't steal it when there isn't a disaster. So they should be able to afford to pay for just what they need to survive. I wouldn't expect them to pay up front right then and there but some form of recompensation for damages and taking the goods they would normally pay for is in order.

I said a long time ago that in the event of that situation I do not blame them for taking the food, but if it were me I would try to pay the store owner back for the food I took.


I did just say I didn't want to get into the looting debate. Why did I do it?
Anyway, I am gone for the weekend. I will be back on after I awaken from my football (Yes, American) slumber.

 

[smellysocks12]

No matter what you say will make someone's life worth less than your possessions.

They damaged MY property and stole MY property. Say I did have compassion on them and didn't blame them for stealing my food, who is paying for the damage to my storefront, store room door, and anything else that gets broken?

Insurance, funds from the government.

Being poor is not an excuse for stealing food because they don't steal it when there isn't a disaster. So they should be able to afford to pay for just what they need to survive. I wouldn't expect them to pay up front right then and there but some form of recompensation for damages and taking the goods they would normally pay for is in order.

That's right, I only said that it's ok to take it when there is no other alternative. There was no food being sold in N.O. , so if nobody is willing to sell it people will have to take it when the food IS there. All of these stores getting raided are insured, so that isn't the crime being commited.

The real crime is the government allowing it to happen that levees get in such a bad shape, causing so many people to become victims of bad maintenance. The hurricane would have caused damage anyway, but with proper maintenance of certain structures the misery could have been minimized.


By the way I didn't call you an inhumane pig, I said that if your way of thinking is so egocentrical that you value your possessions which you don't need to keep yourself alive over someone else's life, then that would make you an inhumane pig.

 

[Famine]

If people take food from your store because they have no other way to feed themselves in that location, and you would try and sue them for doing so? That would make you an inhumane pig who should end up in a situation like that some day. I am talking about the ones taking what they need, not the ones walking out of stores with plasma tv's.

So anyone walking out with anything more than vitamin pills is taking more than what they "need"?

You still didn't define "need", or how you would determine what an individual's "need" was, from your earlier quote:

Someone who has access to more food than he'll need himself

Also, as I said before, if you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

No matter what you say will make someone's life worth less than your possessions.

Can we presume, from this, you wouldn't think of confronting a burglar or stopping a woman from being mugged in the street? After all, they're just taking possessions and if you attack the criminal you're making someone's life worth less than possessions...

That would make you an inhumane pig who should end up in a situation like that some day.

Self-contained irony. Is wishing tragic misfortune upon someone not an inhumane act?

 

[smellysocks12]

So anyone walking out with anything more than vitamin pills is taking more than what they "need"?

You need more than vitamin pills to stay alive, especially when you don't know how long it will take until you get supplied with food.

You still didn't define "need", or how you would determine what an individual's "need" was, from your earlier quote:

Food, water, shelter. The basic needs to stay alive in the short term.

Also, as I said before, if you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

In a situation where it is all about survival, you have to help people. If you're not willing to do so, you shouldn't be part of a civilized society. Go back to your jungle and fight for every little piece of bread you own.

Can we presume, from this, you wouldn't think of confronting a burglar or stopping a woman from being mugged in the street? After all, they're just taking possessions and if you attack the criminal you're making someone's life worth less than possessions...

We're not talking about burglars or muggers in the street, don't go off topic. We're talking about desperate people trying to stay alive, with taking the goods as their only option to stay alive. In 'the street' there are more options to stay alive than just robbing someone.

Self-contained irony. Is wishing tragic misfortune upon someone not an inhumane act?

When it is wished upon another who doesn't have any compassion for someone who is in that situation, then no it isn't inhumane, it would be justice.

 

[Danoff]

Smelly,

You seem to think that morality is a convenience. A luxury that only belongs to those who are not in immediate need. It is easy to be moral when you don't have to make tough decisions. The true test of morality comes when your (or your loved one's) ass is on the line.

In any society, somebody's ass is on the line almost constantly. You can't excuse immoral behavior because morality was inconvenient. The best test of your character comes when it is inconvenient.

 

[Famine]

You need more than vitamin pills to stay alive, especially when you don't know how long it will take until you get supplied with food.

Food, water, shelter. The basic needs to stay alive in the short term.

*swish* Point avoidance!

Someone robs a store for food they "need" to stay alive. That's okay to you, because it's something they "need". But when do YOU determine what is "need" and what is "greed"? Someone lifting a crate of beer - need or greed? Someone stealing a lobster - need or greed?

Is a loaf of bread justified, but smoked salmon not?

And, just out of morbid curiousity...

Food, water, shelter. The basic needs to stay alive in the short term.

You've been coming from a position that states those that have must give to those that don't.

So we turn up in New Orleans and give a bloke a couple of sandwiches, a Jerry Can with 2 litres of fresh water in it and a tent. Now HE has and lots of other people don't. Must he share his sandwiches, water and tent with someone else who doesn't have any of these things? After all, TWO sandwiches is more than he "needs" when someone else has nothing...

If not, why not? If so, what happens when a third person with nothing turns up? Or a fourth?

In a situation where it is all about survival, you have to help people. If you're not willing to do so, you shouldn't be part of a civilized society. Go back to your jungle and fight for every little piece of bread you own.

*swish* Point avoidance 2! This isn't even slightly about willingness, or otherwise, to help and you know it. Most people would give, but when it is summarily taken they have no option how to give, or to whom.


Answer the question. If you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

We're not talking about burglars or muggers in the street, don't go off topic. We're talking about desperate people trying to stay alive, with taking the goods as their only option to stay alive. In 'the street' there are more options to stay alive than just robbing someone.

You stated, very clearly, "No matter what you say will make someone's life worth less than your possessions.", denigrating that person for the perception of view you imposed upon them.

Unless you, in every situation, deem someone's life as being worth more than your possessions, then you have no place making this remark. My response is clearly on-topic if your original comment is.

And obviously you don't, in every situation, deem someone's life as being worth more than your possessions, as in a subsequent throwaway remark, you wish that person to be in the midst of a natural disaster.

When it is wished upon another who doesn't have any compassion for someone who is in that situation, then no it isn't inhumane, it would be justice.

Oh, well, that's okay then. Wishing someone's life away over possessions is fine in this specific instance because you think so.

You seem to have a very ambiguous understanding of what morality is.

 

[Danoff]

http://tiadaily.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1026

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the
Welfare State


An Objectivist Review


by Robert Tracinski | The Intellectual Activist


September 2, 2005

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure
out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them,
because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going
on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think
that we are confronting a natural disaster.


If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is
obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation
to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop
the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists,
natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary
people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of
doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up
and rebuild.


Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to
do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they
are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself
included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind,
and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.


But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

*snip*

The worst example is an
execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious
Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth
is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the
exact opposite of individualism.


What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the
welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is
behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the
responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to
a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to
overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain
that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos
of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.


But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about
saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own
anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their
businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried
about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But
living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.


The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains
and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral
ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one
is reporting.

 

[smellysocks12]

*swish* Point avoidance!

Someone robs a store for food they "need" to stay alive. That's okay to you, because it's something they "need". But when do YOU determine what is "need" and what is "greed"? Someone lifting a crate of beer - need or greed? Someone stealing a lobster - need or greed?

Is a loaf of bread justified, but smoked salmon not?

And, just out of morbid curiousity...

Point avoidance? At a time like that there is no time to exactly define what people need. It is mayhem, you can't sit around and decide what people need. Whether it's bread or salmon doesn't matter

You've been coming from a position that states those that have must give to those that don't.

So we turn up in New Orleans and give a bloke a couple of sandwiches, a Jerry Can with 2 litres of fresh water in it and a tent. Now HE has and lots of other people don't. Must he share his sandwiches, water and tent with someone else who doesn't have any of these things? After all, TWO sandwiches is more than he "needs" when someone else has nothing...

If not, why not? If so, what happens when a third person with nothing turns up? Or a fourth?

Apparently once a 3rd or 4th person shows up he can't give anymore because he needs what he has. I'm not talking about who should give what, I'm saying that in the short term it doesn't matter where the food comes from. Whoever will be paying the bill is something that can be decided later. Unneccessary dying of people is wrong, that's plain and simple.

*swish* Point avoidance 2! This isn't even slightly about willingness, or otherwise, to help and you know it. Most people would give, but when it is summarily taken they have no option how to give, or to whom.


Answer the question. If you believe you have more right to my stuff than me, please let me know why.

If you want an answer, when you are in need you don't have more of a right to have something than the original owner. But people have the right to live, ever heard of human rights? So if the difference of having something or not having something means the difference between life or death, then that gives you the right to live, yet take what you need. The right to "own" something is all relative anyway, your name isn't on that piece of bread. If I steal it, it is my bread, I have the right to have it.

If you can't get the right to own something can't be taken according to your opinion, then you're saying that all white, black and asian americans need to leave the country immediately, since you guys 'own' the land which was stolen from Native Americans and have no 'right' to live there. How do YOU define the right to own something?

And obviously you don't, in every situation, deem someone's life as being worth more than your possessions, as in a subsequent throwaway remark, you wish that person to be in the midst of a natural disaster.

See reply below.

Oh, well, that's okay then. Wishing someone's life away over possessions is fine in this specific instance because you think so.

You seem to have a very ambiguous understanding of what morality is.

Maybe you need to stop taking my words literally. I obviously don't wish anyone to run into a natural disaster, yet I would like to see how all these so called people with high morals would act if a natural disaster would take place and they're sitting there after not eating for 3 days, in front of a grocery store telling themselves that it would be immoral to take that one sandwich on display 5 feet away from them. It is moral trying to stay alive with whatever means necessary if no other options are there, plain end simple, end of story. People are engineered to survive.


And I'll still take that snickers bar.

 

[smellysocks12]

By the way you guys remind me of this reporter, who I would love to crack in the face in a completely immoral way for his ignorant ass worrying about the goods inside a supermarket, while people are dying outside.


http://www.fungod.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=19&pos=83

 

[Danoff]

By the way you guys remind me of this reporter, who I would love to crack in the face in a completely immoral way for his ignorant ass worrying about the goods inside a supermarket, while people are dying outside.

It makes sense to me that you would say something like this. You're very willing to resort to force from a social point of view, so it doesn't surprise me that you talk about resorting to force in so many other areas as well.

 

[smellysocks12]

It makes sense to me that you would say something like this. You're very willing to resort to force from a social point of view, so it doesn't surprise me that you talk about resorting to force in so many other areas as well.

I said I would love to, not that I would actually do it. Funny, I was already anticipating a comment like this.

 

[Danoff]

If you want an answer, when you are in need you don't have more of a right to have something than the original owner.

You have no concept of property. Which makes sense considering your views of government.

But people have the right to live, ever heard of human rights? So if the difference of having something or not having something means the difference between life or death, then that gives you the right to live, yet take what you need. The right to "own" something is all relative anyway, your name isn't on that piece of bread. If I steal it, it is my bread, I have the right to have it.

It's funny that you would envoke human rights when you refuse to acknowledge property rights.

It's absurd, completely absurd to think that you have a right to what you can steal. That's the most fundametnally uncivilized, ignorant, brute view of existance. That's anarchy.

If you can't get the right to own something can't be taken according to your opinion, then you're saying that all white, black and asian americans need to leave the country immediately, since you guys 'own' the land which was stolen from Native Americans and have no 'right' to live there. How do YOU define the right to own something?

You own what your produce... what is voluntarily given to you. Only when you talk about war or criminal justice can you start to talk about rightfully owning something that was taken by force. And then it has to be carefully justified.

 

[smellysocks12]

When a government, which is supposed to look after its citizens and create an environment which is supposed to be as comfortable as possible for everyone who is willing to put in his part to society, doesn't support you... then yes, there actually is no reason not to have anarchy. A society doesn't work when only a few people benefit from it. The word society is derived from the word "Socius", which means "ally" or "fellow". If people don't look after each other there is no reason to have a society or a backbone. If you aren't willing to pay your part to society, to help others within that society out of their problems, you aren't supposed to get help from that same society either, you have no place within that society.

 

[Famine]

Point avoidance? At a time like that there is no time to exactly define what people need. It is mayhem, you can't sit around and decide what people need.

And yet that's precisely what you are doing. You are saying that it is okay to take from someone who has "more than he needs". How are you to decide this without defining "need"?

Whether it's bread or salmon doesn't matter

And the beer?

If you want an answer, when you are in need you don't have more of a right to have something than the original owner. But people have the right to live, ever heard of human rights?

No - they have a right to LIFE, and a right not to have that taken from them. They don't have a right to have the means to live provided to them.

So if the difference of having something or not having something means the difference between life or death, then that gives you the right to live, yet take what you need.

If you're in a position to go and rob someone, you aren't in a position that the bounty means the difference between life or death.

The right to "own" something is all relative anyway, your name isn't on that piece of bread. If I steal it, it is my bread, I have the right to have it.

Just had to highlight that one.

My name isn't on my PS2s either. If you steal one, is it yours?

If you can't get the right to own something can't be taken according to your opinion, then you're saying that all white, black and asian americans need to leave the country immediately, since you guys 'own' the land which was stolen from Native Americans and have no 'right' to live there. How do YOU define the right to own something?

I can't think of any part of the land I own which was stolen from the Native Americans. Or indeed for several miles around.

And the black woman opposite (and the "Asian" chick on my second left) both purchased their properties after accruing the capital to do so.

And I'll still take that snickers bar.

And ledhed will still shoot you in the face. Legally.

 

[Danoff]

When a government, which is supposed to look after its citizens and create an environment which is supposed to be as comfortable as possible for everyone who is willing to put in his part to society,

That's not really what government is supposed to do.

doesn't support you... then yes, there actually is no reason not to have anarchy.

I see, so when government fails, anarchy is justified. So if the police in my area go on strike, I might as well steal what I can get my hands on. Your argument makes no sense.

A society doesn't work when only a few people benefit from it.

That's what I've been trying to tell you.