London Riots: We Tried To Warn You

I agree. When several democrats called the Tea Party "terrorists" it really rang hallow with the American people. If people gathering together in a peaceful protest in which the police are never called and they even pick up their own trash to leave the place better than when they arrived...is terrorism, then we've watered down the word.

But the definition of terrorism is when people use violence to achieve a political end, and that's exactly what these rioters are doing. They are terrorists and we do not negotiate with terrorists. We kill them or lock them up. Period.

Then nothing. When somebody commits a crime, they get locked up. Rehabilitation is up to them, not society.

Actually, I'm looking down a different trajectory where rioters are met with the blunt force of the law and are cracked down so hard that it serves as a deterence to any future riots. The only way to ensure future and endless riots is to tolerate them.

Or we can just lock up criminals where they can foster an understanding relationship with Big Bob.

Your refusal to not see terrorism when it's happening right before your eyes is nothing short of alarming.

 

When people use violence to acheive a political end? Then Clinton, Bush, Obama (to name just three) are all terrorists. Then the founding fathers of America were terrorists. See what happens when you use such a simple minded term?

If the prison system is not to rehabilitate and just concentrates on deterrence (or even worse, just punishment) it is horribly stunted.

Yes, because cracking down has had such a great effect in the past. Don't make me laugh.

Yes, you crack down in the short-term but in the long-term you need to resolve the issues, otherwise you will have sporadic outbreaks of violence.

If you find it acceptable and consider such outbreaks controllable and a price worth paying then by all means, do not address the problems.

If you actually want to stop riots then you have to be somewhat more creative.

Your insistent on calling everything 'terrorism' betrays your black and white thinking.

 

You're the one convoluting the definition, not me.

That's your opinion. The state has no obligation to the criminal, only to society to keep it safe from the criminal.

It's hard to prove a negative. The riots in America are few and short lived. It's unseemly to point to riots that don't happen as proof that deterence works.

Giving in to rioters is the way to ensure they will continue. Issues are resolved through the political process, and to make sure that happens, no other method can be tolerated or the political process loses its meaning.

No, I won't facilitate lawlessness by validating it. You have a fundamental ignorance of human nature and that's why you have a blindness here.

Mix it up a little? Water canons one day and OC grenades the next? Playing musical jail cells?

Actually, I've been very clear on my definition of terrorism and the rioter fit the DHS definition of terrorism.

 

You said a terrorist was someone who used violence to acheive a political end. In what way do the people I listed not fall under that category?

The best way to keep society safe (and at the cheapest cost) is to rehabilitate criminals to prevent reoffending.

Or indeed addressing the factors that cause crime in the first place. Such as massive income inequalities.

Repression never works in the long run. See Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the world.

What is required is short-term crackdowns but long-term reforms.

I have an ignorance of human nature?

You are the one who has a massive inability to ascertain the causes of delinquency.

 

And the best way to do that is to make prison the worst gosh-awful place to be. Get rid of the cable TV, the rec rooms and all the other crap that make incarceration much like normal life. If prison were the hell hole it should be, very few would want to return there.

Sorry, income inequalities do not drive people to crime. This is a slander on many low income, law abiding Americans. Nor does higher income reduce crime. In fact, a case could be made that just as many rich people commit crimes but get away with it because of their lawyers.

Great Britain gave in to the IRA which should prove encouraging to any future terrorists with a gripe. The peace accord with the IRA was struck upon the agreement that Ireland would be independent in less than 100 years.

The cause of delinquency is the absence of reprecussions. When you negotiate with rioters, you affirm that their behavior is an acceptable way to get what they want and you encourage them to bypass the political system by which reform happens peacefully. So yes, you are ignorant of human nature.

 

Let me put it this way.....

People that work earn things. A home, a car, clothing... whatever. These are not people that tend to riot. Why is that? That is because once you own things, they can be taken away from you, and who wants their stuff taken away. Ahh... but when you do not OWN anything... nothing can really be taken from you. And short of killing someone, in a legal sense... there is not much that can be done to you either.

Sort of the same reason that neighborhoods with higher home ownership, than home rentals, tend to be nicer places to live. Because people that have something want to keep it nice, protect it, etc. Because it took a lot of hard work and effort to get it in the first place!

Those who are given things tend not to really care about them as much. Why are the condition of most welfare homes crappy? Does it really cost a huge amount of money to keep your place clean, tidy, and in good repair? They tend to get run down because of the attitudes of the people living there. It is the mindset of "Oh well... someone else will do it for me..... give it to me..... I am owed it... etc.".

I know many people that are retired. Some of them are fairly wealthy people. Most of them still work jobs of one form or another, not because they need the income so much. But they need something to do... to remain productive. It was probably that productive attitude that made them wealthy in the first place. It is those who are happy to sit... do nothing, and allow others to pay for them that will riot. Not becuase they want to elevate their own situation, but rather because they want it to remain the way that it is....

 

Really? Well let's test that.

America's prisons are much tougher than say...Norways.

America's recidivism rate? 60-70%
Norway's recidivism rate? 20%

By Jove! The facts are on my side! Rehabilitation requires more than just beating the crap out of someone.

Sorry, look at the entire thread again.

There is a causal link between higher income inqualities and higher homicide rates. I presented several papers to show this. Care to present any evidence to the contrary?

They gave a token to the IRA and this lead to Good Friday. However the token wasn't enough and so old tensions are beginning to slowly rise (especially in the wake of the recession). Now, prior to those tokens, what happened? Oh yeah, South Armagh was the most dangerous place in the world for a British serviceman to be stationed.

Nope. You lose. Delinquency is mostly caused by the breakdown of social structures and the inability to acheive social status through non-violent (or delinquent) means.


So far, none of your posts have had a shred of evidence to back them up.

Please provide any support you can for any of your positions, otherwise I fear I am wasting my time.

 

What causes people to not work for things?

It clearly isn't welfare as we don't see these problems in the Social Democracies.

You still require a cause.

 

Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

 

Several papers, graphs. Statistics regaring murder rates and income inequality in the U.S., statistics on recidivism rates..

Nope can't think of any evidence I provided.

 

Some would say human nature. I say that some people are just born that way, and some are not. When I was in college I took a management course, and they talked about theory X and theory Y workers. I forget which was which, but basically it says there are some workers (x?) that will only work if they have a manager that is always looking over their shoulder, and cracking the whip so to speak. Otherwise, they will always seek to do as little as possible and still get paid.

Then there was the other type of worker (y?) that is internally motivated. These are people that see their work as a reflection of themselves. And just like they are not crappy people, they do not want to produce crappy work. These are workers that work best when management is interfering as little as possible.

I think that people in other areas of their lives are like that (to the x or the y). There are some that would be happy to be lazy, sit on a couch and play video games all day if they had the money to do it. There are others that even if they had as much money as they could ever want, being idle is not good with them. That is why you see some very wealthy people start foundations, charities, tech incubators, etc. Because for these sorts of people.... being idle is almost like being dead.

I do not think there is really a way to promote one sort of behavior, and extinguish the other. At best I think the profit motive tends to reward the productive, and does not not help the idle...

 

Bill Gates did not have to burn buildings down or beat people up to start microsoft. The reality is... he is just that much better than most people.... and that is why his is so weathy... and so many others are not....

 

So genetics? Then why are you complaining about a lack of morality? While genetics is a factor it is by no means a determining factor.

Your explanation still needs to explain international differences and intertemporal differences.

Why did the murder rate in the U.S. drop in the 50's and 60's and then rise? Are we to believe the genetics has changed so much?

Are we to believe that the Social Democracies consist of a genetically superior people? In general?

 

How pathetic the Limey's are. They are asking a failed policeman from the US to help them. When this idiot left L.A. there were still over 400 violent gangs in place. he did nothing but shoot his mouth off. IDIOTS !

 

Failed? Now you tell us!

 

Very good post... good points, right on the mark.

I would only recommend that we not overlook the factor of OPPORTUNITY. Not all people are poor because they lack motivation, inadequate education, lack dreams or are lazy. Given the chance most people would chose to work and have their own property and live without the uncertainty like a drug addict worrying about how they are going to get their next fix.

OPPORTUNITY is fading and people are getting desperate. Is bad government the CAUSE ? Can good government FIX it?

When we compare the success and prosperity of nations that co-exist side by side... like North and South Korea, America and Mexico, Cuba and Cayman Islands... that have similar natural resources... wouldn't we conclude that the governments are the main factor?

 

Hmmm... sort of went off the deep end there a bit.... all I was saying is that there are some that will always choose to be lazy and idle... and that no amount of money or income redistribution is going to fix that problem...

 

You know.... you raise some good points as well... and I really do not know the answer. If people are given things for free.... would they more often than not take care of those things..... or let them fall into disrepair.

I honesty cannot say.... I know what I THINK would happen... but I cannot prove it obviously. It would be a great experient though.... just to see what would happen. I actually wrote about this one a few posting back.

That is the experiment of giving 1000 college students something of value (car, house, IPAD, computer, etc) and tell them to take care of it for the 4 years they are there. And then after 4 years they will collect them and pass them on to new students. Would most of these items survive and be in good repair after 4 years?

And what if you did the same thing and told the students that if the item WAS in good working order after 4 years they would give them $1000. Would that alter the results of the experiment at all.

I would love to see that one....

 

Fair enough. There will always be a certain percentage of malcontents.

That said we can significantly alter that percentage, if we choose to.

The ones who worked for it would obviously value it more.

The question of giving something for free is kinda missing the point. The point is to provide opportunity and to act as a safety net.

It would take time to get results as the attitudes of people wouldn't change greatly. However the attitude of the current children and future children would be massively improved.

 

Very good post... good points, right on the mark.

I would only recommend that we not overlook the factor of OPPORTUNITY. Not all people are poor because they lack motivation, inadequate education, lack dreams or are lazy. Given the chance most people would chose to work and have their own property and live without the uncertainty -- like a drug addict worrying about how they are going to get their next fix.

OPPORTUNITY is fading and people are getting desperate. Is bad government the CAUSE ? Can good government FIX it?

When we compare the success and prosperity of nations that co-exist side by side... like North and South Korea, America and Mexico, Cuba and Cayman Islands... that have similar natural resources... wouldn't we conclude that the governments are the main factor?

We can talk about the Constitution, States Rights, government and religion and a thousand other topics...

HOWEVER the REALITY is that we live in capitalistic society where the "game" is played out in millions of transactions between businesses and consumers every day. The role of government is liken to a referee, to insure the game is played fairly and the consumers (citizens) aren't cheated. I have concluded that if not for the anti trust regulations that prevented monopolistic dominance of the economy ( a little over 100 years after this country was founded) ... America - the great capitalist experiment - would have failed long ago.

Can you imagine allowing referees of the Superbowl to be paid by gamblers? Who would care about the game knowing the outcome would be unfair and predictable? Yet we have a government that is run by campaign contributions. Why did businesses who have one purpose - to make a profit - give up a TRILLION dollars of their precious profit to campaign contributions during the past 10 years?

Obviously, they are purchasing INFLUENCE... just as gamblers would like to control the "calls" the refs make in the Superbowl.

So why is ANYONE confused about why the citizens of this country are suffering? All the calls are made against them... and we just tolerate it.... but we wouldn't tolerate it in the Superbowl... we have instant replay, fines and reviews and commentary to "correct" any mistakes and keep the game honest.


The problem we face today is not like two lemonade stands competing across the street from each other.. or even Walmart vs. Kmart. It's the results of providers of essential goods and services (and governmental mandatory services like insurance) hijacking the consumers on their way to work. When Exxon hijacks a consumer on the way to buy a new car, GM and Ford loses. When Pfizer takes $100 for 10 pills they hijack a consumer on the way to eat at a restaurant.

Unless government steps up to the plate and makes some tough calls to keep the game of capitalism fair, energy and health will accumulate all the wealth of the nation and strangle the entire economy of the capital they need to innovate and compete in the world wide marketplace.

The long term security of a nation is not it's military might, it's natural resources.... it's the strength of it's citizens to support the government. Since we live in a capitalistic society, our strength comes from the economic power of he citizens.

This just in.... we are much much weaker that we realize. Most citizens have sunken so deeply in debt there is no way out. How can you collect taxes from them? You can't. Over half the citizens do not pay any taxes at all. 10% of those that did are now unemployed. The millions of citizens who are paid by the government and pay taxes are just giving some of their income back... so in REALITY about 1 out of 3 people are supporting the government. They will be tapped out as government strives to stay afloat and starts to confiscate anything/everything of value from them the outcome does not look good.

 

"Over half the citizens do not pay any taxes at all"

Every time you spend money you pay tax.

 

So why should some folk only pay that sort of tax and others all taxes?

 

No, you don't. If you have no earned income you are not paying taxes. If you have a new born baby, you pay his taxes for him, assuming you work. He doesn't pay taxes.

So, deadbeats who have no earned income and live on the dole pay no taxes. No income tax, no sales tax, no property tax, no alcohol tax, no highway tax, no gasoline tax, no FICA tax, no luxury tax, no telephone tax, no tax on medical implements, no tax on anything. Oh, and fees to use government utilities and services that working people pay, they don't pay those either. They'll get free passes for the buses, the subways, public entertainment venues, and public parks.

 

Their Entitlement Beast is completely out of control. It will always demand more. That's just the nature of the Beast. The Brits don't know what real Poverty is. So them rioting & looting over "Poverty" really is absurd. Just a bunch of fat,lazy,spoiled (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s in the end. And their Government "Cracking down on Social Media" should be shocking to everyone. Great Britain has now joined the brutal Dictatorship Tyrannies of the World on that. Nanny States just don't work in the end. Great Britain is anything but a Free Nation at this point.