As a mental exercise, let's take this to the next level. Initiation of force is bad; agreed. Response with force to force is good. Presumably agreed. The government acts through force or a threat of force. The Nazis did not have to use actual force in eliminating the "undesirables" until they were herded into the concentration camps. An occasional use of force in a society that follows laws was enough to lawfully, and without actual force in most cases, have those people board the trains. Ruby Ridge was that occasional use of force that makes all others passive when the government steals their income through lawful taxation. Hell, we even fill out the forms and send in the checks, voluntarily - right? But isn't the threat of force always behind these "voluntary" actions? So, is resistance with force against our credo of not initiating force applies here or has the other side already initiated the use of force?
As to the validity of giving a chance to some in coming around, I would argue that this is no different than when dealing with any other criminal. Can a thief, murderer, etc., reform? Sure, but we still want to punish him for the crimes committed. And statistically, the reforms are quite rare. In this case, we have an entire class of thieves that have never seen anything in their lives outside of stealing. This class has no skills, no desire to produce or to support themselves in any honest way and have thought their children to be thieves. Do you really think that they can be reformed? And before they'll eat me to the bone?

I understand your frustration strugatsky, and certainly for those people initiating force they deserve what happens when good people defend themselves. But wrong headed thinkers stand a chance to change. It happens.

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.

I think his logic starts with rioters being right and incurring a fine on society when it does the wrong thing. The whole thing breaks down, though, when rioters are wrong about something, which has been known to happen.

The end result is what you say.

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

Nonsense.

How does someone get his business off the list? It sounds like they're trying to start a protection racket.

Might the riots be the beginning of a Seldon crisis? :) I liked the Foundation series.

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.

sadly Frodo, it is not satire

Superficially, the Boston tea party was immoral. They were destroying the private property of merchants. However, those merchants were there as agents of the State so on a deeper level it was a moral action. Nor would it be immoral to riot against a Stalin, et al. In both cases, the actions are an attempt to protect life and liberty from the deprivations of the State. Sometimes that requires the destruction of property. Better that than the shedding of blood, which is the next inevitable step.

But what's happening in Ferguson doesn't even resemble the above scenarios. Ferguson is rage and the mob mentality set forth to destroy and loot on a good pretext.

Yes, indeed. The welfare state does keep the rioting down. Panem et circenses and all of that.

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.

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

stay safe, uncommon

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.

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

Enough.

civil society or moral society? sorry, broken window was used in the comments. Not the author's argument

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

ok, for discussion sake: was the Boston tea party immoral? Is it immoral to riot against a Stalin, Mao?
Are agitators or anarchists just trying to create destruction. What is the distinction between protest and riot? There is no peaceful way to overthrow a Stalin. I would say, that if we were not a welfare state this rioting might be happening. How else are agitators affording hanging out somewhere away from they live for 90 days? They're getting a govt check or they are being paid by unions or as democrat agitators. Note the right does not engage in this destructive kind a of folly. When they protest it is one day, a weekend-because they have productive lives to attend to

St. Louis is no stranger to that. I lived in University City in the mid 80s. Block after block of mansions (built for the Worlds Fair) were boarded up and abandoned. It made you sick to experience the mass exodus of productive people in the 60s and 70s riots. They were just starting to rebuild in the late 80s-2 decades had passed!

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.

Not only that, but also it glosses over the fact that after the riots, no business is going to be set up there any longer. The area is on its way to become yet another ruined urban hazard.

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 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.)