I'm so pissed about these moronic protesters right now I'm not even touching this. I don't give a crap if you're being "peaceful" about it, the reason you're protesting is stupid as hell.

It's almost as bad as the people who support Mumia Abu Jamal or whatever his name is...

I couldn't get past the description of the prosecutor as "smirking". I've replayed it several times and I didn't notice a single smirk.

It contains the broken window fallacy AND an unstated premise that the rioters are responding to legitimate grievances: "Rioting that occurs in response to gross police misconduct and criminal system abuses imposes costs on doing those things." From there he proceeds to do calculations about how rioting incurs a cost that discourages other more costly mistakes on the part of the authorities.

The premise that rioters are a good judge of what police conduct and the criminal justice system is laughable.

By this logic systematic ethic cleansing is great for the unemployment rate.

Too many mOron posting in response on that link.

Gawker wasn't far from straight-up crazy.

Now they are there.

Dear Gods, how contemptible.
Ethics, logic, and justice are not taught in schools any more.
Instead it's "fairness".
Instead it's "feelings".

Enough.

While reading the Onion article, I imagined it being written in a fiery place by a smirking horned demon who flicked a red tail, had its forked tongue crammed into one bulging cheek and used a talon extended from a finger for a pen.
Whoa! Today is Thanksgiving--not Halloween!

Amazing. Good Post. I was waiting for someone to approach things from thins angle. I thought it might be MSNBC though.

Even if it was good for the economy, it would certainly be a poor fallacious argument....

but just in case it is true,
Matt Bruenig
(our writer about poverty, inequality, and economic justice at Demos, and Texas native and graduate of the University of Oklahoma)
should have the rioters start with his car(s), home (occupied, or otherwise), and any other items, possessions or relationships he values.

Wish I could just toss off a one-liner to show the absurdity of that article. Absent that, here are some thoughts.

One commenter wrote: "Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state."

There it is, nakedly exposed: the notion that private property is wrong. We see here the function of envy on the part of those who have less. The fruits of productive achievement are to be looted just for being there. This is the most primitive of the hunter/gatherer mentality that treats the whole world as there for the taking. Rage-driven frustration escales to violent predation.

Our civilized society teeters on a perilous balance of tribalism that destroys the concept of merit: that individual effort should accrue to the benefit of that individual, and that each individual has the fundamental right of self-ownership. Anything less is slavery. I'd go so far as to say it's cannibalism, that allows some to consume the substance of others, feeding off others' energy.

While such practices have been institutionalized from earliest times, and to this day in the socialist welfare system, this twisted rationalization for rioting as justified goes against all human progress enabled by the U.S. Constitution: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The right to own what one has worked for, the right to private property, is the basis of those values. No one has the right to own another human being.

I conclude that rioting is immoral, illegal, barbaric, and in the long run unproductive. What's next -- guillotines in the marketplace?

I don't see where the the author was using the broken window fallacy. The author did not indicate that wealth or GPD would be created by rioting. The evils of rioting parallel the evils of war - non combatants get injured or damaged, and the rioters much like rogue soldiers act as judge, jury and executioner. There is no place for rioting in civil society.

And good for Michael Brown's family.

http://downtrend.com/71superb/michael-br...

the logic is, then, that there should be violence
in response to every grievance. . physical damage
for each perceived offense. . and we go swirling
down through the pipes to the sewer, with our
"best nation on earth" ....... -- j

Many here will recall that Isaac Asimov invented the science of 'Psychohistory' in his Foundation series of novels. I'll wager that Matt Bruenig is a fan and student of Asimov almost at my own level of study.

And yes, I agree with khalling about the Onion-esque qualities; truth can be stranger than fiction.

I'm not sure if the author is being serious or if this is an attempted satire of the free market argument.

Perhaps it is satire, so let me respond in kind. Riots are great for the economy for at least 2 reasons. 1. Someone has to rebuild everything which means increased economic activity. 2. Since the criminal justice system plays an increasingly important role in the economy, rioting puts more police, lawyers, prison guards, etc. to work. Bam! Even more economic growth.

I too took the troweled-on adjectives in the first sentence to indicate that this was a spoof article. Reading further, I saw that it was actually serious.

OK, beginning at the OMG this is serious point, I agree with the writer on the following point: the purpose of a public protest is to increase the cost of engaging in a particular activity. For instance, if someone is engaging in random-check forcible blood draws for alcohol, and people protest against it, then the cost to the police department of engaging in that practice is increased. The media scrutiny of this activity can cause an amplification cycle with respect to that practice that increases the cost further. Now you note that I said 'public protest' and not 'riot'. The cost to the police of burning down someone's business exists solely in the media amplification cycle - and the business owner has just 'been volunteered' to bear the major part of the cost. Protests _may_ be good; the ability per se to protest _is_ good; riots are bad.

That being said, the only part of the whole encounter that was Wilson's responsibility was yelling, "Get back on the fucking sidewalk." This is what I would consider 'starting off on the wrong foot'. Other than that, I think that he _is_ squeaky clean. (And I also think that he was fighting for his life.)

The riots of Ferguson did draw public attention to the use of militarized police; many of the people on this list have posted negative statements about this militarization. Now it looks like the pendulum is swinging the other way...and it is because the riots in Ferguson drew media attention to this new mode of police activity.

The economic benefit? WHAT economic benefit?

Jan

How are these people wired? I think we should riot at his (author) house and help his economic development.

This guy was simply preaching to the choir. Given that the choir was composed of agenda driven off-key dunderheads.

I couldn’t read the whole thing; it was so bias.
Facts don’t matter if you already have tried and convicted an innocent man. I guess you could say “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up”!!

Look on the bright side. This is part of the process of natural selection, encouraging businesses to relocate to places where the residents respect their right to exist unharmed. Let the barbarian thugs starve and freeze in the dark they're creating for themselves. (Too bad about their neighbors.)

After all attempts at reason and logic, the only way to cure a progressive/liberal/socialist is a bullet to the head. Everything else is just a waste of time and energy.

Nonsense.

and now this fresh hell
http://defund.com/ferguson-protest-group...

stay safe, uncommon