London Riots

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The protests and initial riots started over something the government did. I suggest you read up on the facts. The continuing riots and looting is part of the disconnect that Brand (a person that actuallly lived in those areas and grew up there and was involved in similar protests) talks about between the government and its people.

Hate to break the bad news to you, but it's going to happen here.

Yes, government action was the catalyst - police shot a man brandishing a gun at them and it appears likely that they have lied as to whether or not he shot first. While the violence that sprung up afterwards may have initially been in response to outrage, however, it continued b/c of opportunistic outlaws taking advantage of a volatile situation.

All those interviews with looters who were "feeling disconnected" with their government are just people making an excuse for stealing from others and attempting to evade personal responsibilty for their violent actions ("It's not my fault, the devil/the government/big business/rich people made me do it"). The rich/wealthy weren't targeted, government offices weren't targeted. Nothing was targeted except wanton destruction and grabbing a "few extra trainers".

Making excuses for their lack of personal responsibility and attempting to excuse their imposition of violent chaos on an otherwise lawful society is an invitation to tyranny and a recipe for deeper evil. Hitler's thugs and blackshirts were just a bunch of poor, disenfranchised workers and war veterans who felt the need to beat people up b/c they couldn't make their voices heard through the failed liberal democratic system. It was bullshit then and its bullshit now.

The system may be flawed but spontaneous, chaotic violence for the sake of spontaneous, chaotic violence is wrong under any circumstances. Your comparisons to the French and American revolutions - if intended as an appropriate analogy in any way - are laughable and somewhat disturbing. Where is the Continental Congress or the National Assembly who speak for the looters? What are their specific claims? If they are disaffected, what prohibits them from taking an active part in enacting peaceful political change? Are they prohibited from speaking freely? Are they not allowed to peacefully assemble and organize? Are their civil liberties being systematically violated or denied them?

Let me save you the time. No. No. No. No. These looters are not prohibited from affecting change by anything other than their own complacency. They are unhappy with their current life and rather than working hard to peacefully change it through the existing political structures - which they are free to do (unlike the French 3rd estate and the American middle class and plantation elite who were unable to do so) - they take advantage of a poor response by law enforcement to steal and destroy private property. Don't go romanticizing these thugs - they didn't find a Bastille to storm. Instead, they stole from shopkeepers, middle class business men/women. They destroyed the ability of many people to earn a living.

This was not some politically organized statement, it was thuggery sparked by a violent catalyst - nothing more nothing less.