London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

[Southernguy]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Llanlad2: very good piece. I traveled to London several times in the end of the seventies and first eighties. Maggie Thatcher was beginning with her destructive work.
I remember the coal minerīs strike, her violent response, and her "victory".
And I also remember when, refering to a dying IRA hungerstricker she said with contempt "If he wants to die, itīs his privilege". I can still hear her words.
Now we are beginning (yes, this is just the beginning) to see the results.

[Chris Coles]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Llanlad2: very good piece. I traveled to London several times in the end of the seventies and first eighties. Maggie Thatcher was beginning with her destructive work.
I remember the coal minerīs strike, her violent response, and her "victory".
And I also remember when, refering to a dying IRA hungerstricker she said with contempt "If he wants to die, itīs his privilege". I can still hear her words.
Now we are beginning (yes, this is just the beginning) to see the results.

Very, very, sadly, I can only confer that you are correct.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Interesting to see the analysis of some here, which seems to be basically that the fault of this rioting lies with fiscal conservatives and businessmen who don't want to spend more money on welfare and get too rich for their own good by lending money to people who can't pay it back, as if those who foolishly take on too much debt are not responsible for that choice. With the exception of one sentence in the referenced Times article ("Mob violence, despicable and inexcusable, must always be condemned") there is no suggestion at all that the people who are doing the looting, rioting, assaulting, and burning are at fault.

I have a different view of things. The fault here is with the character of the rioters, and their character is their responsibility, period. They CHOOSE to do these things. But in the eyes of a liberal, they aren't really making a choice -- they are simply a kind of animal responding to stimuli, and it is the fault of the State for not providing the proper combination of stimuli - good jobs, free health care, free housing, free education, etc etc etc. There is no suggestion that these people can be rightly condemned -period, stop - for the choices they are making. There is always a "BUT" appended. "Rioting must be condemned, BUT...." and then they go on to talk about how it's really Thatcher's fault. Evil Thatcher, cutting back on the free stuff. How could people do anything BUT riot when they get less free stuff, right?

Liberals have been taking responsibility for providing the proper stimuli for these people for 70 or 80 years or more, giving them free educations, free health care, free housing, free job training opportunities, etc. And it doesn't work. Because when you tell a person that they are not responsible for their lives, they are not responsible for their character, for their choices; when you tell them that they are the helpless victim of selfish businessmen and capitalists and conservatives who are causing (horrors!) income disparities by being too successful; when you tell them that they can't solve their own problems, that they are entitled to and must be GIVEN things; when you endlessly make excuses for their lack of character and never hold them accountable - even to the extent of having the police stand by while they openly loot and rob right in front of them; then you get a growing class of human beings who CHOOSE to take the easy way of excuses and laziness and stealing. It is the obvious outcome of the moral hazard mentality of liberalism, which never fixes the responsibility for bad behavior of the underclass on the character and choices of the underclass.

Every one of them wakes up in the morning with the same number of hours in the day as any of us have, the same human will with the same possibility of CHOOSING to do the right thing, even if it is hard. They could choose to start working on developing skills (there are certainly plenty of liberal social programs out there for them to take advantage of - including free state education - if they really wanted to do so), choose to stop abusing drugs and alcohol, choose to get their act together. They are not animals with no free will, they are human beings who can make choices. And they don't need a liberal to clear the way for them, either.

I sit here bemused by the liberal response to this rioting. The diagnosis seems to be that what is needed is even more liberalism...even more welfare, even more "income redistribution". If 80 years of socialism and redistribution leads to social breakdown and a growing class of people who take no responsibility for themselves...well...then bring on even more socialism! Quoting the Times article again: "Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution." Amazing! If socialism doesn't work, the ONLY SOLUTION is to double down on the socialism!

This is what will happen: more socialism will be tried, and yet more, until there aren't enough productive people left with wealth to "redistribute" - the remaining ones having left the country, retreated to hermithood, or been robbed/raped/looted until they stop trying or are even killed - and the money is all gone. And then the barbarian hordes descend, a la Rome circa 410 A.D. to sack what is left. And then perhaps there is a dark age, or there is conquest by some other civilization. Or just possibly, there is a realization among liberals that character is what counts and that character cannot be provided by the government. It is developed by overcoming hardships and challenges oneself, and that in a country with a free market and protection of property rights and honest courts and police, anyone who will master their own behavior can find work and build a meaningful life.

[makimanos]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

I agree. In the meantime the answer is simple. More police, army patrols and severe sentences. London needs a Rudy Giuliani.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

For those who really think the cause of this is some kind of wrong committed by the productive, go and listen to these two British girls delighting in the looting and burning they've been doing. They are enjoying themselves immensely. It's a lark. They feel free to talk to a TV interviewer casually about the crimes they've been committing, with no fear of repercussions.

And here's the key point: they have right at hand their handy liberalism-supplied justification: "It's because of the rich people. We're showing them we can do what they want. It's because of them, it's their fault."

That's what liberalism has taught them. They are not responsible for their choices. Anything bad they feel like doing, they can do, and it's the fault of the rich and the government and other people. Complete moral vacuum. This is the result of the absolution that liberalism gives louts for their behavior, teaching them they are just victims, not human beings with free will and choice, but animals responding to stimuli beyond their control. And the truth is they know exactly what they are doing, and they love doing it - it's exciting, they get free stuff, and they even get to feel morally superior - just helpless victims of society, after all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

[Mn_Mark]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

I agree. In the meantime the answer is simple. More police, army patrols and severe sentences. London needs a Rudy Giuliani.

I think that eventually the solution will have to be shooting looters in the streets. Maybe not in this round of rioting, but at some point in the future.

That sounds extreme, but when the looters know that the worst thing they face - assuming they are even caught, and assuming they don't just get a slap on the wrist - is a little time in jail, which most of them are probably used to anyway. You have an entire class of people who have internalized the message that they can do whatever they want and there are no real consequences for it. I'm not sure that anything short of some of the fellow looters being shot down in the streets is going to be enough to get it through their heads that they can't just do this kind of thing without risking serious consequences. IMO there really isn't any punishment that the liberals running British society are willing to deal out that really scares these types.

It's a tough thing, changing the prevailing worldview of a society. The misplaced idealism and faulty understanding of human nature underlying liberalism are going to die hard. A lot of innocent people are going to be hurt and a lot of property and savings destroyed in the process. All we can do is keep an eye on what's evolving and try to stay out of the way as the lessons are learned the hard way.

[dcarrigg]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

I sit here bemused by the liberal response to this rioting. The diagnosis seems to be that what is needed is even more liberalism...even more welfare, even more "income redistribution". If 80 years of socialism and redistribution leads to social breakdown and a growing class of people who take no responsibility for themselves...well...then bring on even more socialism! Quoting the Times article again: "Meanwhile, the view is gaining ground that social democracy, with its safety nets, its costly education and health care for all, is unsustainable in the bleak times ahead. The reality is that it is the only solution." Amazing! If socialism doesn't work, the ONLY SOLUTION is to double down on the socialism!

Can you define what you mean by socialism? The term is thrown around very loosely. You clearly don't mean it in the Marxist sense of public ownership of the means of production.

So, would you define social security as socialism?

Is it any payment made by government to individuals (as opposed to corporate contractors)?

It's a word thrown around often like 'freedom,' by anti-intellectuals who like to recreate that fundamental Zoroastrian dichotomy:
freedom good. socialism bad.
It makes for very imprecise discussion.

[Slimprofits]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Give me a rooftop with a good clear view & a Russian "Drangon-off" riffle & i sort this 5-10 mins.......
Mike

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-28949358/

Its hard to belive it was 30 years ago, i responded to a call to arms. I fought the law & WE won!....Would the young do the same today?
Mike

Are there two Mega(s)?

[don]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

One's place in the political economy at any given point in time determines one's perspective on events.

Not an absolute but hardly inaccurate.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Can you define what you mean by socialism? The term is thrown around very loosely. You clearly don't mean it in the Marxist sense of public ownership of the means of production.

So, would you define social security as socialism?

Is it any payment made by government to individuals (as opposed to corporate contractors)?

It's a word thrown around often like 'freedom,' by anti-intellectuals who like to recreate that fundamental Zoroastrian dichotomy:
freedom good. socialism bad.
It makes for very imprecise discussion.

Yes, Social Security is socialism. I would phase it out.

The proper role of goverment is protection of property rights. It is not to provide a "safety net" or to manage people's lives. People must be responsible for their own lives, or if necessary, must depend on voluntary, private charity.

Speaking of "imprecise discussion", calling me an "anti-intellectual" is imprecise. I am not opposed to intellectuals. I consider myself an intellectual. I am opposed to destructive ideas. The fact that the academy is stuffed full of people right now who believe that some version of socialism is the solution to society's problems - rather than personal responsibility, free markets, market-driven innovation, voluntary charity, minimal government - does not mean that only socialists can call themselves "intellectuals". Their conceit that only they are "intellectual" and the rest of us yahoos who believe in such "imprecise" ideas as freedom are "anti-intellectual" is part of the problem. E.g., Obama's ego and inflated sense of his own abilities (see "I have a gift, Harry").

[llanlad2]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

I think that eventually the solution will have to be shooting looters in the streets. Maybe not in this round of rioting, but at some point in the future.

That sounds extreme, but when the looters know that the worst thing they face - assuming they are even caught, and assuming they don't just get a slap on the wrist - is a little time in jail, which most of them are probably used to anyway. You have an entire class of people who have internalized the message that they can do whatever they want and there are no real consequences for it. I'm not sure that anything short of some of the fellow looters being shot down in the streets is going to be enough to get it through their heads that they can't just do this kind of thing without risking serious consequences. IMO there really isn't any punishment that the liberals running British society are willing to deal out that really scares these types.

It's a tough thing, changing the prevailing worldview of a society. The misplaced idealism and faulty understanding of human nature underlying liberalism are going to die hard. A lot of innocent people are going to be hurt and a lot of property and savings destroyed in the process. All we can do is keep an eye on what's evolving and try to stay out of the way as the lessons are learned the hard way.

Yeah yeah yeah. Throw the word liberalism around as though that is the cause. The "liberalism" argument is the same argument thrown about ad infinitum throughout history by the priveliged few. Spot an uprising. Put some heads on sticks in case it gets out of control. Send in the army. You're right of course it is liberalism that has got us into the mess. The liberalism of "free" markets. The liberalism of offshoring. The liberalism of corporations "avoiding tax". The liberalism of fiananciers being able to create loans illegally and not be punished. The "liberalism" of a controlled corporate media brainwashing dumbasses.
Without liberals fighting for your rights you'd still be a Britsh Subject of the Queen paying taxes to the British Nobility with no representation. Without liberalism we'd all be serfs.
Would you rather return to the less liberal era of feudalism and absolutism? Absolutism is where we are headed right now.

[coolhand]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

This "us v. them" theme i get from both the right & the left re: the rich v. the poor is going to end badly...here in America, 95% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the people, the unemployment & underemployment rate among all youth is over 55%, amongst minorities its higher, & there are 9 guns for every 10 people, 3x the rate of Baghdad...most big cities in America are also riots waiting to happen.

"As long as the people of Germany are starving, there will be many more Hitlers." -Hjalmar Schacht, Bundesbank President.

[shiny!]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Yes, Social Security is socialism. I would phase it out.

The proper role of goverment is protection of property rights. It is not to provide a "safety net" or to manage people's lives. People must be responsible for their own lives, or if necessary, must depend on voluntary, private charity.

YES! You're on a roll today, Mark... I'm enjoying all your posts immensely.

[shiny!]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

I think that eventually the solution will have to be shooting looters in the streets. Maybe not in this round of rioting, but at some point in the future.

Only one problem: the Brits gave up their guns. You have a large majority of law-abiding people who are disarmed, unable to defend themselves from mob violence.

[jk]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

i suggest ideological debates be moved to rant&rave. do any of the participants in these "debates" think that a single mind is changed in the process?