Prioritization...which first?
Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?
1: To protect its citizens against foreseeable natural disasters (pre-emptive protection)
or
2: To protect its citizens against foreseeable acts of terrorism (pre-emptive war)
Well, I would say that both are pretty important. However, it's easier and cheaper to defend against human enemies than the forces of nature; after all, a volcano could spontaneously erupt anywhere and more or less ruin any kind of disaster defenses. You have to have plans for both.
Also, it requires that pre-emptive war be considered necessary to defense against terrorism, but that's another debate.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
11-09-2005, 23:24
I'd say that the most sacred duty of any nation is to protect its people from forseeable movie remakes of crappy 70s TV shows, in that area, all our governments have failed us.
Kjata Major
11-09-2005, 23:30
I'd say that the most sacred duty of any nation is to protect its people from forseeable movie remakes of crappy 70s TV shows, in that area, all our governments have failed us.
With more lives taken by natural acts then war in the past 50 years in America....nature is bad. Also we do protect people with out Codes for structures.
Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?
1: To protect its citizens against foreseeable natural disasters (pre-emptive protection)
or
2: To protect its citizens against foreseeable acts of terrorism (pre-emptive war)
This topic doesn't make much sense to me, and neither do its options. IMO, a Government should protect its citizens period.
How about which ever one came first. (Though I don't really agree with that either.)
Kjata Major
11-09-2005, 23:41
It was a hypothetical situation. Which should you devote more money to. Protect yes, but this is not a one or the other type of question. That would be brain dead. Since one with more funding is of a 'higher priority', to be interpretted as you want, it could mean many things also. Though in this case I bet it is more funding.
Please tell me what part of "Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?" doesn't say, PICK ONE?
It is a one or the other question.
Nah, funding wasn't mentioned. It might be your course of action, but it doesn't factor into the question's provided justifications.
Quagmus, if it's not, please say so, and I'll change my response accordingly.
Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?
1: To protect its citizens against foreseeable natural disasters (pre-emptive protection)
or
2: To protect its citizens against foreseeable acts of terrorism (pre-emptive war)If the second option weren't preemptive war, I'd say both are equally important, especially since they take completely different strategies to prepare against. Preemptive war is a questionable strategy to prevent terrorist acts, especially given the fact that it has only increased such attacks in the example of the Iraq war.
[NS]Simonist
12-09-2005, 00:26
If the second option weren't preemptive war, I'd say both are equally important, especially since they take completely different strategies to prepare against. Preemptive war is a questionable strategy to prevent terrorist acts, especially given the fact that it has only increased such attacks in the example of the Iraq war.
Well I was going to answer pretty much that, but you've summed it all up for me.....kudos......
Though I would, by and large, prefer defense against humans (though not a pre-emptive war, and hopefully not a full-blown occupation of any other nation) to defense against nature. But then, I live in the Midwest...."Tornado Alley"....and here the worst thing that's happened to me in the past 15 years is that my darkroom floods about two or three inches if we have some SUPER harsh rainfall. I admit that I'm feeling pretty secure in terms of natural disasters.
Please tell me what part of "Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?" doesn't say, PICK ONE?
It is a one or the other question.
Nah, funding wasn't mentioned. It might be your course of action, but it doesn't factor into the question's provided justifications.
Quagmus, if it's not, please say so, and I'll change my response accordingly.
Indeed, 'seeing to' does not exclusively mean 'fund'. Although everything that can be 'spent' or 'wasted' or 'spared' or 'given' has a price, Time, thoughts, effort, attention, words etc.
Which responsibility of a government is more important and should be seen to first?
1: To protect its citizens against foreseeable natural disasters (pre-emptive protection)
or
2: To protect its citizens against foreseeable acts of terrorism (pre-emptive war)to protect it's citizens from threats it can protect us from. weather it be natural or man made, it's just that Man Made threats are easier to plan for.
Indeed, 'seeing to' does not exclusively mean 'fund'. Although everything that can be 'spent' or 'wasted' or 'spared' or 'given' has a price, Time, thoughts, effort, attention, words etc.
I see what you're saying. I maintain my stance.
Lunatic Goofballs
12-09-2005, 00:33
A government's FIRST and FOREMOST priority is to protect it's citizens' rights and liberties. Everything else pales by comparison.
A government's FIRST and FOREMOST priority is to protect it's citizens' rights and liberties. Everything else pales by comparison.
Thank you for a CLEARLY stated opinion :)
Now, WHAT are those citizens' rights and liberties? Please explain very BRIEFLY and somewhat clearly.
Lunatic Goofballs
12-09-2005, 00:47
Thank you for a CLEARLY stated opinion :)
Now, WHAT are those citizens' rights and liberties? Please explain very BRIEFLY and somewhat clearly.
Depends on THE nation, doesn't IT? :)
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
12-09-2005, 01:35
Depends on THE nation, doesn't IT? :)
Don't you just LOVE it when PEOPLE ranDOMLy capatalize THINGS? it makEs conversations SO MUCH MORE fun, and EASIER to read!
I'm with LG on this one, however, to the question at hand:
In a free society, you can't pre-emptively take action against anyone that hasn't actually attacked you yet, so that leaves preparing for natural disasters.
I do think it's the citizenry's responsibility to do most of the work for these kinds of things themselves--citizens building or paying for local protections (IE, New Orleans paying for the hurricane protections, or Seattle paying for earthquake protections), and citizens learning to shoot and owning small arms for terrorist issues (as all men and women in the National Guard and all males 17-45 are in the militia).
We're supposed to take care of ourselves, folks, not rely on the government to parent us.
It's a silly question. In the first place much of what you might do to protect from one, would also protect against the other. Further the risk and cost factor should always be taken into account.
Take as a topical example the case in New Orleans. Protecting against possible Hurricans by having better physical infrastructure, better plans and provisions for emergencies, and better public awareness/coordination, would have helped prevent unnecessary exaggeration of the negative effects of Katrina, they also all have some value in relation to preventing or mitigating the negative effects of some possible types of terrorist attacks.
In many cases it is far more efficient to direct attention primarily towards mitigating the possible harms caused by natural disasters, possibly even in most cases.