Will Hunting, is it you who said that it was Katrina that turned you against Liberalism?
Posted by
Mop (aka rburriel)
Feb 7 '09, 09:07
|
I get your argument (and at the risk of putting words into your mouth): The government has become a huge babysitter and in times of crisis, Americans have decided "I don't have to do anything. The government will take care of me." I think this is an invalid argument, for the following reasons.
1 - There is a large federal infrastructure in place in times of crisis. People expected that infrastructure to work. Because it failed doesn't mean that the infrastructure shouldn't be there. That's like arguing "I tried to turn on my car but it didn't start. Cars shouldn't exist."
2 - Depending on large scale emergency services from a federal government that is philosophically opposed to the very premise is akin to having (and this analogy is stupid but apt) atheists run the Baptist church. They're indifferent about the whole thing and thus perform poorly. So the constituents should do what? 1) Replace the command structure or 2) Abandon the concept entirely? You're choosing the latter.
3 - Regardless of the babysitting government or not, there are a percentage of people who are always going to ignore the warnings and choose to face the crisis head on, only to be left high and dry (or, in this case, soaking wet) after the fact. An infrastructure needs to be in place for these morons (see the digital transition where, it can be argued that everyone has gotten the message, but some have chosen to ignore it.)
4 - There was plenty of self-help in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. People got into their row boats, went out there, and saved other people. But some crises are so massive that they can only be handled by a large, centralized infrastructure to coordinate and direct. This was a national emergency, and the national government failed us. Should be abolish the national government?
Raul
|