Is this proper police and air force activity?

[DragonMaci]

After watching yet another news article about a tourist getting lost in NZ bush because they were unprepared I began to wonder, is it proper for the police and air force to get involved and search and rescue? (In general that is, not in this particular case.) I am not sure how it works in other countries, but here in NZ the police use personnel and their dogs to help search and rescue efforts and the air force use their helicopters to help. Also, the police usually coordinate the effort. IS this a proper activity for the police and air force? It seems to me that it is not since no force has been initiated.

[K-Mac]

Here in Colorado, you may be billed for your rescue, depending on the circumstances. If you don't want to run the risk of paying for it out-of-pocket, you can purchase insurance at most sporting goods stores.

[DragonMaci]

Here in Colorado, you may be billed for your rescue, depending on the circumstances. If you don't want to run the risk of paying for it out-of-pocket, you can purchase insurance at most sporting goods stores.

Nothing like either of them exists in NZ. But anyway, the question is whether or not the police and air force should be doing such a thing.

[Greebo]

In this case, as the tourist got lost in the bush of his or her own accord, no, because this is not an emergency. An emergency is "an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible". A tourist getting lost is a chosen event - he took actions that led to him getting lost, and human survival is *possible*, if the tourist knows anything about wilderness survival.

If this were an S&R for, say, a plane crash victim, or the like, then I'd say yes, because a crash would not be chosen, and survival may well be impossible (man can't live with a hunk of metal sticking through his body, for example).

In an objectivist society, in my considered opinion, in the second case, this would be a valid police function, and the supporters of Government would choose to pay the bill for it under the recognition that they were paying for the actions necessary to save human life in an emergency.

If the police ran an S&R mission for the tourist scenario you described, the tourist would get the bill.

[DragonMaci]

In this case, as the tourist got lost in the bush of his or her own accord, no, because this is not an emergency.

I said:

In general that is, not in this particular case.

So clearly I did not want a comment on that particular case. Clearly I wanted to know about the general principle of police and the air force helping in search and rescue.

If this were an S&R for, say, a plane crash victim, or the like, then I'd say yes, because a crash would not be chosen, and survival may well be impossible (man can't live with a hunk of metal sticking through his body, for example).

In an objectivist society, in my considered opinion, in the second case, this would be a valid police function

Why? After all that does not fall under the sole purpose of government, ie, to protect its citizens from the initiation of force and fraud.

and the supporters of Government would choose to pay the bill for it under the recognition that they were paying for the actions necessary to save human life in an emergency.

Why would they do that when it does not fall under the sole purpose of government.

As a side note, there is little else the NZ Air Force can do. They had all of their fighter planes sold years ago by the current government and no replacements were bought, so the Air Force can only serve as transport for troops and help with search and rescue. They have no ability to do anything else apart from maybe use their soldiers as ground troops.

[pvtmorriscsa]

Howdy All,

I thought police, and military forces were one of those things we all pay outrageous taxes for.

Don’t get me wrong, as an avid hiker and long distance backpacker; I have little patience for those who do stupid things when in the wild. As Rand said, (I think), “Nature to be commanded, but must be obeyed.”

Since there is no link to the story for me to read, I am going to offer some speculation. I bet the douche-bags that had to be rescued were improperly dressed and there was a sudden change in weather.

Cotton Kills, stick with synthetics or wool when you go into the wild.

[DavidOdden]

A tourist getting lost is a chosen event - he took actions that led to him getting lost, and human survival is *possible*, if the tourist knows anything about wilderness survival.

If this were an S&R for, say, a plane crash victim, or the like, then I'd say yes, because a crash would not be chosen, and survival may well be impossible (man can't live with a hunk of metal sticking through his body, for example).

The plane passenger also chose actions that resulted in him being in a crash. The camper did not chose to get lost, he got lost as a consequence of another choice. Thus there is no significant difference between a plane crash victime and a camping victim. The invocation of "emergency" is not appropriate here. The function of government is to protect against initiation of force, not to protect against emergencies, including crashes and hurricanes. The only role of the government in disasters is to make sure, as much as possible, that the scene doesn't devolve into rioting and looting.

[DragonMaci]

Since there is no link to the story for me to read, I am going to offer some speculation. I bet the douche-bags that had to be rescued were improperly dressed and there was a sudden change in weather.

I didn't link to it because the story was not the point, only what got me thinking. Also, i saw it on the 6 pm news, not online. However, no it was not a sudden change of weather. The tourist (it was one not multiple) got lost and did not have the food or equipment to survive this long (about a week or more now).

The function of government is to protect against initiation of force, not to protect against emergencies, including crashes and hurricanes. The only role of the government in disasters is to make sure, as much as possible, that the scene doesn't devolve into rioting and looting.

That was my first thought, but I was not sure, so I decided to ask.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

After watching yet another news article about a tourist getting lost in NZ bush because they were unprepared I began to wonder, is it proper for the police and air force to get involved and search and rescue? (In general that is, not in this particular case.) I am not sure how it works in other countries, but here in NZ the police use personnel and their dogs to help search and rescue efforts and the air force use their helicopters to help. Also, the police usually coordinate the effort. IS this a proper activity for the police and air force? It seems to me that it is not since no force has been initiated.

Under a strict doctrine of limited government, you are right. Under such a doctrine government is strictly for protecting life and property from wrong-doers and for punishing wrong-doers. The Army is strictly for defending the country against armed enemies. Etc. etc. etc.

However, the general public is inclined to allow our government to do other things. For example, handling a massive outbreak of plague or other natural disaster. One example comes to mind: After the great earthquake of 1906 that destroyed San Francisco by collapse of buildings and subsequent fires, the army came in to manage the crisis. There simply was no other institution for facility in existence (at that time) for doing the job. By the way, the City was rebuilt (better and stronger) within five years with hardly penny of government money.

Perhaps it would be better to have some privately funded Emergency Oh My God The World Is Ending Corps, funded by insurance premiums (say). But no such thing exists at this time. What shall we do if an asteroid a thousand feet across smashes into a major city or causes a tsunami off one of our ocean coasts? We will rely on those institutions we have PLUS voluntary aid sent to disaster areas from all across the country (remember Katrina?). There is an inclination for people to pitch in and help. And it makes good (selfish) sense too. One never knows if he will be the next target for an asteroid, earthquake, tsunami, storm, flood or plague. If one is counting on the neighbors to help in an emergency, then it makes good sense to help one's neighbors in an emergency. Think of it as trader's karma: what one expects to get one should be prepared to give (within reason, of course).

The best example I have ever seen was the ad hoc none governmental response of the people in Oakland California after the 1986 earthquake. A section of the I 880 collapsed and the local folk went into action without government decrees. They got ladders and climbed up onto the elevated highway to give what help they could to the trapped victims, until such time as the professionals showed up and went into action. I don't know about you, but that gave me a warm fuzzy feeling. Had I been there I would have been on the ladders and I was proud that my countrymen who -were there- rose to the challenge of the event.

From the motion picture -Starman-:

Starman: Shall I tell you what I find beautiful about you? You are at your very best when things are worst.

What is your opinion on the matter?

ruveyn

[Greebo]

The plane passenger also chose actions that resulted in him being in a crash. The camper did not chose to get lost, he got lost as a consequence of another choice. Thus there is no significant difference between a plane crash victime and a camping victim. The invocation of "emergency" is not appropriate here.

If that's the logic you use, then someone living downstream from a dam isn't in an emergency if the dam breaks, or someone living in California isn't in an emergency during an earthquake cause, hey, earthquakes are normal there.

Consider Francisco leaping to help repair the furnace with Hank Reardon. By your logic, Francisco shouldn't have helped, because someone chose to make the furnace, and they should have known that furnaces could break down.

I do not agree that it is not an emergency when a PROPERLY PLANNED, normal action goes wrong unexpectedly, creating a life threatening situation.

The plane passenger chose to go from point a to point b by plane, not to have the plane crash at point Q. This was not a normal event, it was not planned, it was not chosen, and it is most definitely of limited duration.

[DragonMaci]

If that's the logic you use, then someone living downstream from a dam isn't in an emergency if the dam breaks, or someone living in California isn't in an emergency during an earthquake cause, hey, earthquakes are normal there.

Either they knowingly chose to live in an area with the risk or chose to evade the issue of risk assessment. Either way it was a result of their decision.

Consider Francisco leaping to help repair the furnace with Hank Reardon. By your logic, Francisco shouldn't have helped, because someone chose to make the furnace, and they should have known that furnaces could break down.

I don't think that is the case as there are key difference. The first is that Francisco was helping someone he immensely values. As was recently quoted in another thread, selfish people can and should help those that they care about since they are acting to protect their values. Secondly, Rearden was not the one that made the decision. Someone else did, presumably his foreman.

The plane passenger chose to go from point a to point by plane, not to have the plane crash at point Q.

David was not saying he chose to have the plan crash. He was saying he chose to take the risk. Everyone that knows what a plan is knows the risk involved.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I can imagine a standing military (paid for voluntarily) helping out with rescues, etc., without it being a problem. First off the rescue can serve as training time, second off, it benefits some of the customers more than NOT doing the rescue effort would.

Now things are different if the military is actually fighting a war, but if they are at home running exercises (very important, mind you), why not? The pay is the same.

In the United States there is a civilian auxilliary to the Air Force called the Civil Air Patrol; they do search and rescue (as well as Aerospace Education and having a co-ed cadet program for teenagers, think Boy/Girl Scouts with search and rescue and airplanes). The vast majority of the people in it are volunteers, however their aircraft, etc., are paid for by the government.

[DragonMaci]

I can imagine a standing military (paid for voluntarily) helping out with rescues, etc., without it being a problem. First off the rescue can serve as training time, second off, it benefits some of the customers more than NOT doing the rescue effort would.

Now things are different if the military is actually fighting a war, but if they are at home running exercises (very important, mind you), why not? The pay is the same.

Interesting perspective. I will have to think it over.

[DavidOdden]

If that's the logic you use, then someone living downstream from a dam isn't in an emergency if the dam breaks, or someone living in California isn't in an emergency during an earthquake cause, hey, earthquakes are normal there.

Try re-reading what I said. I'm not concerned with how you define emergency, I just reject your specific error in claiming that one situation but not the other is an emergency. The ultimate issue is not whether there is or not an emergency. If you realized you left your potroast on high and you have to rush home to turn it down before dinner is ruined, you can call that an emergency if you want. The toursit who gets lost does have an emergency -- he is not distinct from the guy in the plane crash. The point is, it doesn't matter if you call it an emergency, what remains true is that this still is not the function of government. The purpose of government is not to "respond to emergencies" such as potroast problems, rising interest rates, lost campers, sinking ships or burning buildings.