Andy,
You are missing the point on why government is sometimes required to take precautions against potential threats.
For example, in the 2003 Canberra bushfires it was not a settled fact that fires that had been burning for 4 weeks would combine then rage through Canberra suburbs, destroying 500 homes and killing 4 people. The government decided that as the potential threat was not "settled" it would not alarm the population by issuing warnings or arranging evacuation centres. Lives were lost and many people were injured and traumatised in the chaos that resulted from government inaction.
You are missing the point on why government is sometimes required to take precautions against potential threats.
For example, in the 2003 Canberra bushfires it was not a settled fact that fires that had been burning for 4 weeks would combine then rage through Canberra suburbs, destroying 500 homes and killing 4 people. The government decided that as the potential threat was not "settled" it would not alarm the population by issuing warnings or arranging evacuation centres. Lives were lost and many people were injured and traumatised in the chaos that resulted from government inaction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment