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

[coolhand]

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.

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").

They will be responsible for their lives. They will come kill you & take your stuff, & the cops will show up to protect your property rights by putting you into a bag.

[gwynedd1]

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

Stocks to watch

Alcoa ticker symbol : AA

The Aluminum bat business is thriving in Britain.

[Starving Steve]

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

Might the youth be rioting in the UK because of the outrageous cost of living, especially the outrageous cost of housing? Might the youth be rioting because 0.3% of the population own 66.66% of the kingdom's land?

Imagine 3 people per thousand own two-thirds of the land in the UK! And city and regional planners prevent cities from developing outward?

I wonder if the rioters know the facts of land tenure in the UK and why they have no future? The rioters probably sense the injustice of the cost of living, but a little instruction on why land and housing are so expensive might enlighten the youths about how Britain is planned.

[Chris Coles]

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

Simple question Mn Mark: How many jobs have you, personally, created?

[dcarrigg]

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

Speaking of "imprecise discussion", calling me an "anti-intellectual" is imprecise. I am not opposed to intellectuals. I consider myself an intellectual.

I was not calling you an anti-intellectual. If you read the post that way, it was not how it was intended. I was simply saying that anti-intellectuals have diluted the term "socialism" to the point where it is very imprecise. It is used to name-call rather than as a defined term. That is all.

[dcarrigg]

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

Now that I know what you mean by socialism, I'll refute what you're on about here.

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

I don't know about that. Most people around here tend to blame finance, insurance and real estate specifically - and they point out where the .gov messes things up too.

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,

Ummm, yeah. Isn't it a bad business decision to lend money out that can't possibly be paid back? The 'welfare' herring is a beautiful shade of red this time of year.

as if those who foolishly take on too much debt are not responsible for that choice.

Sure, there's some blame there. It takes two to tango. But when you make loans with impossible terms that the consumer cannot understand, much less repay, then you package them and sell them off ASAP dumping the liability on AIG and ultimately .gov, you are a predator. Just because nobody went to jail this time, doesn't mean it's right.

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.

Yes, they are at fault for looting. Hundreds have been arrested. Their lives will be worse-off for the record. There will be consequences. But the article was getting at why it happend. It was not written as a condemnation - that's a different topic and tone all together than what this piece was trying to achieve. The Prime Minister has condemned it, and rightfully so.

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.

No one is excusing personal responsibility. Still, they probably don't all choose to be 20 years old in the worst economy in 50 years and unemployed. Should they just calmly accept that fact and sit idly by waiting for the wealth to trickle down from Thatcher's gilded jowls?

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.

And liberal is derogatory here I suppose. You mean it in the USA 'Rush Limbaugh' way and not in the Nick Clegg way, right? Just making sure again.

There is no suggestion that these people can be rightly condemned -period, stop - for the choices they are making.

Ummm...that's exactly what the PM did. Is asking why this occurred a crime?

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?

I threw in the earlier Thatcher's jowls bit as a low-blow bit of comic relief. Seriously, though, I think most people want work and living wage, not free stuff.

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.

Ummm...free education is bad? That's a deeply American thing - compulsory education passed in 1683 in PA. Hating on free compulsory education is tantamount to spitting on the star-spangled banner. You're getting pretty wacky libertarian on me. Why not privatize police and fire next? After all, you're getting free private property protection. Is that socialism too?

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.

There's some truth to this. Unfortunately a lot of .gov programs do incentivize laziness. None incentivize stealing so far as I know, though.

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.

Alright, the term 'liberal' is driving me nuts by this point (and I consider myself a pragmatist). It's as bad as the other side saying 'corporate pig' every two minutes. Leave it out - it makes for a more reasoned argument. I'd doubt every one of these people is drugged up.

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!

I think that social programs should be counter-cyclical. They should ideally expand in bad economic times and contract in good ones. This was the eventual idea behind Nixon's 'revenue sharing' program with states, although it was scrapped in the US long before this happened. I'm willing to bet that you grew up with responsible parents who provided for you financially and gave you a head start in life. That should be rewarded.

Still, this is democracy, and I consider any assault on the equality of opportunity an assault on the institution. Feudalism is for royalists and the House of Lords.

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 those barbarian hordes gave us the English language and the Protestant work-ethic and the concept of Capitalism, and ended the socialist, redistributist empire that was Rome. Maybe if this does happen, your libertarian, free-market paradise would arrive. (note: I have some elements of a bit of a libertarian streak in me on some things, but getting rid of public education and taking away old age, survivors and disability insurance that people have paid into by working all their lives ain't on my list).

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.

I know some good people out of work. Smart people; hard-working people. I guess just because they got pink slipped and have been trying to find something similar that pays about 70% of what they got before they are lazy, liberal scum right? Or are they alcoholics? Who knows.

Their lives are meaningful, but they cannot find decent work. Should they, at 50 years old, be happy to work for $7 and hour and no benefits? Will they be scum for getting foreclosed on because something that was stable for decades suddenly wasn't?

[Starving Steve]

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

Maybe LOWER the cost of living in the UK, such as lowering the cost of serviced land and relaxing development controls? Maybe the knock-on effect would be to create a place for manufacturers to relocate their businesses? And maybe then, Britain might have products and exports for the world market? And then, the knock-on effect would be more jobs.

This kind of approach, I mean to say, LOWERING the cost of living by RELAXING eco-rules, zoning rules, anti-growth rules, preservation rules, anti-urban sprawl rules, outrageous taxes, and over-regulation would mean flooding the markets with new serviced land, new electrical energy, new homes, new businesses, new manufacturing plants, new products, new power plants, new trunk servicing, new roads, higher speed limits, and........ and really a new way of thinking.

Let people do what the hell they want to do! Government should be serving the people and not be on their backs, making their lives miserable and making their lives impossible.

[nathanhulick]

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

Whatever people are rioting over, it's almost universally a bad economic signal to have rioters running around in your capital city burning police stations to the ground while the police watch, unable or unwilling to help them.

[oddlots]

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

Born in Britain. British parents who live there most of the time. Sister in Peckham. Cousins all over the north. Frankly can't explain it but I loathe the place. Would never raise a child there.

Can't really explain it but there's just a visceral nastiness to the worst of the british character that I've never really encountered in the "New World." Graham Greene's Brighton Rock defines it well. The thought of my child being subjected to a mugging after having been beaten up - as in a BBC news clip - and by utter, unreachable sh!ts who are proud of their predatory sang-froid makes the blood drain from me.

Can't make a rational argument for it - the mad max quotient seems to be on the rise and no-one here is surprised - but I wrote off Britain back in the eighties.

Sorry homies; hate my roots.

[lektrode]

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

...
...
But who will listen?

some of us are listening mr c.

and the 'music' is getting louder...

[lektrode]

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

no...

ok dc, this ones way too long for the moment... but i'll be back.

[lektrode]

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

Might the youth be rioting in the UK because of the outrageous cost of living, especially the outrageous cost of housing? Might the youth be rioting because 0.3% of the population own 66.66% of the kingdom's land?

Imagine 3 people per thousand own two-thirds of the land in the UK! And city and regional planners prevent cities from developing outward?

I wonder if the rioters know the facts of land tenure in the UK and why they have no future? The rioters probably sense the injustice of the cost of living, but a little instruction on why land and housing are so expensive might enlighten the youths about how Britain is planned.

we know this is the issue mr steve.... the question is: where do we compromise?
somewhere along the line, there's going to be one - and at some point, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET A HAIRCUT.

[Starving Steve]

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

we know this is the issue mr steve.... the question is: where do we compromise?
somewhere along the line, there's going to be one - and at some point, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET A HAIRCUT.

I would think cities could expropriate land from the gentry and pay them a fair AGRICULTURAL value for the land. Then the cities could sell the land in small bits to subdivision developers, at a small mark-up to cover the time and work doing this. This is what we did in Regina, Saskatchewan when I lived there. The Province of Saskatchewan would expropriate land and place the land into land banks. That land sat idle for years until I moved to Regina and busted-open the land banks under the direction of Ron Clark, the Director of Planning during the years that I was a planner for the City of Regina. Ron and I had serviced land flowing into Regina's housing market ( for construction of homes ) every month. In fact, my job was to monitor how fast we could dump the land onto the market so that builders would be busy and the housing market would not inflate.

When I arrived in Regina, the land banks just served to block housing development. They functioned as ridiculous open space or farmland on the fringe of the city. No-one knew why they were there, and we had eco-frauds and preservationists and conservatives trying to keep the land banks from being developed. The land banks would keep the land market within the city limit sewed-up tight. So Ron and I literally busted the land banks wide-open and drove the land speculators out of the housing market. Ron and I pushed Regina's urban development out to the North-West in what we called, "the NW sector" and also to the South-East in what we called, "the SE sector".

Needless to say, Regina became a very vibrant, very affordable, and growing city when I lived there. I liked Saskatchewan. It was very progressive under the N.D.P. government in the late 1970s, and it was a great place to live.

[rogermexico]

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

Born in Britain. British parents who live there most of the time. Sister in Peckham. Cousins all over the north. Frankly can't explain it but I loathe the place. Would never raise a child there.

Can't really explain it but there's just a visceral nastiness to the worst of the british character that I've never really encountered in the "New World." Graham Greene's Brighton Rock defines it well. The thought of my child being subjected to a mugging after having been beaten up - as in a BBC news clip - and by utter, unreachable sh!ts who are proud of their predatory sang-froid makes the blood drain from me.

Can't make a rational argument for it - the mad max quotient seems to be on the rise and no-one here is surprised - but I wrote off Britain back in the eighties.

Sorry homies; hate my roots.

Funny, my wife just read Clockwork Orange for the first time. Sounds like Alex and his Droogs are afoot in blighty.

[aaron]

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

Thanks for the reply, dcarrigg. It needs to be said.

The article did mention 53 applicants for every job. Yeah, they are lazy ... same with the 1 million McDonald's applicants here in the United States for several thousand jobs.

Too bad the kids are so dumb. They should be burning down banks and parliament. And yes, violence is the only thing the oligarchy fears. They got 'em burning each other, so they are safe and happy for now.