A report with photos of the rioting in Britain. An excerpt:
In one of the most serious incidents, the well-known Reeves furniture store in Croydon, south London, which first opened in 1867, was completely destroyed by a huge fire.
Owner Trevor Reeves told Sky News: 'It has just provided my family and the 15 or 20 staff and families that were supported, it's just completely destroyed.
'Words fail me. It's just gone, it's five generations. My father is distraught at the moment. It's just mindless thuggery."
8 comments:
How could any reasonable person think this sort of behaviour is OK? And yet thousands upon thousands of them clearly do.
I wonder whether the Arab Spring looked like this to Mubarak?
"Non-lethal ammunition"?? These people have destroyed property and lives. Where is the sense of proportion?
Thugs are not reasonable. I'd submit that these rioters don't deserve to be compared to the majority of the protesters in the Arab Spring. These aren't political protesters. These are thieves, bullies, and hoodlums.
I was struck by the defensive tone of the remarks by the police. They might - might, mind you - use plastic bullets! The store owners may be more worried than the rioters about that tepid response.
Michael
Thing is most insurance companies exclude damage done by riots and civil unrest....The people doing it think their behaviour is excusable and they have a right to do it. Left dominated government and commentators, will blame society and circumstance for their abhorrent behaviour, the issue is a personal lack of responsibility and a sense of social entitlement. I want, I deserve, I am entitled, rather than I would like or If I work hard I can achieve something, if I contribute I can be a worthwhile member of society.
My experience of thugs is that they are as reasonable as anyone else. (Though working off rather different assumptions and principles than you or me).
But the mob is much, much less than the sum of its parts.
My point was that, to a dictator, the apparent the apparent anarchy would be as frightening and unacceptable as the London riots are to us.
So if lethal ammunition was unacceptable in Egypt, it's unacceptable in London.
I see a huge difference between the force exerted by a democratically elected government to maintain order and that of a dictatorship to maintain repression. In the latter case, no amount of force is justified. In the former case, lethal force to prevent mob rule might be justified if other forms are not effective.
The ultimate difference between a government and, say, a church, is the ability to physically coerce. That's why we want restrictions on the use of such power. We don't want the ability to coerce to pass to those who are beyond any restrictions, whether it is a dictator or a mob.
Ah, but Michael, that's because you're a democrat.
I'm sure that most dictators genuinely believe that their countries still need them, long after the emergency that brought them to power. And are genuinely interested in maintaining order.
I do agree about controlling the use of force, though.
The other difference between a government and a riot is the duration. Riots are over in a day or two, whereas governments endure. Generally.
Leaving the question of how to deal with the rioters...
Hitler and Stalin thought they were making the world better but that does not put them in the same league as Churchill and Roosevelt. The arsonist and the fire department deal with fires but we should judge them differently or we fall into a nonjudgmental moral agnosticism.
Post a Comment