5 ms·

No, the politicians and the state have just isolated themselves effectively enough from the riots. The riots are the only thing people can do to protest a numbe

No, the politicians and the state have just isolated themselves effectively enough from the riots. The riots are the only thing people can do to protest a number of measures, most seriously the changes to the pensions. These riots (and "riots", not all are violent, and I haven't heard at all of these rioters damaging people) don't affect the state much, but they affect regular people plenty. Torched cars. Destroyed shops. Nonfunctioning services. Police stations are now fortresses, as are most of the government departments. The state has made a definite choice: the hard hand, no help, and absolute priority to their own protection. Normal crime, like theft from stores, what people want the state to work on, is not even prosecuted anymore. You'd have to steal from a big store, in the city center, while an agent is there to have any chance of getting arrested (only youngsters, whom they can arrest indefinitely without evidence and convict even when innocent, ever get persecuted. Of course, the lack of evidence standards in cases against minors raise the question exactly how often these convictions (sorry "protection measures", not convictions) are fabricated. Let's just say the relation between police and youngsters is strained for some reason). People want this to stop, and so they want more protection of the state. The French state, of course, could be said to have been less than effective in stopping these riots and the destruction. People, including representatives, are just point blank assuming this will help the police to be effective. That the police is the cause of the riots does not seem to make a big impression. "Do not shoot people moving away from you in the face" is clearly to much for the police to handle. When you ask people "what else would you want people to do?" there are no answers, because especially nobody wants the obvious option: another long-term national strike. Ironically the state has done nothing but grow. This is the fundamental conflict: everyone has to "save" (especially people who can't), but not the state. With inflation people have to spend ~11% less, effectively. The state has decided their absolutely necessary expenses will not even have to return to pre-pandemic levels. People want protection, that's why this gets approved. But the state, where they believe to get this protection, is the direct cause of most of the problems people face.

BlargMcLarg 3y ago
>People want protection, that's why this gets approved. You're missing the most important detail: especially in Western/Northern Europe, people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk. Europeans aren't just lazily asking for protection, they simply weren't raised to defend themselves from trespassers and assailants without the thought of potentially suffering consequences (even if it is just defamation). Of course these people are going to beg the state to do it, handing over whatever privacy or independence they believe not needed. They don't know any better. They've been raised on 'knives will be used against you' from toddler age.
- banana_feather 3y ago
  As opposed to what in the United States? Anyone advocating for a reduction in the authority of law enforcement is pretty quickly relegated to the fringe of either party or actively beaten down depending what the conditions call for (the American public couldn't rubber-stamp the patriot act fast enough). As far as property crime against businesses is concerned, we absolutely should be telling people it's a risk to intervene. We should actively dissuade drugstore clerks from risking life and limb to stop someone from stealing a cart of sudafed in exchange for minimum wage at will employment with no benefits.
- pif 3y ago
  > people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk We are still waiting for an example of a sane society where the opposite is true.
  - pif 3y ago
    To people downvoting: please do add a comment with an actual example. Make HN Great Again!
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    We are still waiting for example of sane society.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      Meanwhile in this instance the police caused the riots by first beating someone with their gun and then shooting a person ...
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > You're missing the most important detail: especially in Western/Northern Europe, people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk. Yeah, and we call that “civilization”. If you cannot rely on the state for security, then you're basically living in the contemporary version of the pre-modern world (South America bas manu good examples of that, but the US isn't really, people do rely on 911 more often than not)
cassepipe 3y ago
It's quite funny that you take a theft from a store as your example but I am not so sure this is something "normal people" care about, only store owners. Especially when impoverished "normal people" rely on shoplifting to get clothes and food on the table. Stores are not a one person venture or family owned anymore, a franchise at best or part of big group. They're capital. Most "normal people" don't own capital in my little corner of the world I guess most of us see normal people as a collection of our self. As a normal person, I don't care about petty shoplifting but I would expect from the state for example to investigate murders.They're poorly investigated in general because they are hard to clear and you can't put them in your stats whereas arresting a youngster and taking his weed counts as a solved case.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  I think "normal people" will very much care about shoplifting when they see that prices go up to cover for that. Or, even worse, when store owners figure they can't be profitable in some area and go away altogether. I think people keep on thinking that "the rich" feel they have some kind of moral obligation to help them. As we've seen time and again, they do not. And they will even go out of their way to protect their money. See all the fiscal arrangements they set up to "optimize" taxation.
  - cassepipe 3y ago
    > I think "normal people" will very much care about shoplifting when they see that prices go up to cover for that. Or, even worse, when store owners figure they can't be profitable in some area and go away altogether. How and when are they going to see that ? In my country, there newspapers headlines about how supermarkets have egregious margins. Is this true ? I don't know, but they don't mention shoplifting in the articles. > I think people keep on thinking that "the rich" feel they have some kind of moral obligation to help them. As we've seen time and again, they do not. The rich do not have a moral obligation to help us but they do have a legal obligation to pay their taxes and give back to societies they live in and benefit from like everyone else. I am not sure it's moral obligation but they could also have the decency to stop spending so much money in lobbying, politics and information campaigning in order not to pay their due proportionally to what they own. Is this not accurate anymore : https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/ https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w...

BlargMcLarg 3y ago

>People want protection, that's why this gets approved. You're missing the most important detail: especially in Western/Northern Europe, people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk. Europeans aren't just lazily asking for protection, they simply weren't raised to defend themselves from trespassers and assailants without the thought of potentially suffering consequences (even if it is just defamation). Of course these people are going to beg the state to do it, handing over whatever privacy or independence they believe not needed. They don't know any better. They've been raised on 'knives will be used against you' from toddler age.

banana_feather 3y ago
As opposed to what in the United States? Anyone advocating for a reduction in the authority of law enforcement is pretty quickly relegated to the fringe of either party or actively beaten down depending what the conditions call for (the American public couldn't rubber-stamp the patriot act fast enough). As far as property crime against businesses is concerned, we absolutely should be telling people it's a risk to intervene. We should actively dissuade drugstore clerks from risking life and limb to stop someone from stealing a cart of sudafed in exchange for minimum wage at will employment with no benefits.
pif 3y ago
> people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk We are still waiting for an example of a sane society where the opposite is true.
- pif 3y ago
  To people downvoting: please do add a comment with an actual example. Make HN Great Again!
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  We are still waiting for example of sane society.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Meanwhile in this instance the police caused the riots by first beating someone with their gun and then shooting a person ...
littlestymaar 3y ago
> You're missing the most important detail: especially in Western/Northern Europe, people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk. Yeah, and we call that “civilization”. If you cannot rely on the state for security, then you're basically living in the contemporary version of the pre-modern world (South America bas manu good examples of that, but the US isn't really, people do rely on 911 more often than not)

cassepipe 3y ago

It's quite funny that you take a theft from a store as your example but I am not so sure this is something "normal people" care about, only store owners. Especially when impoverished "normal people" rely on shoplifting to get clothes and food on the table. Stores are not a one person venture or family owned anymore, a franchise at best or part of big group. They're capital. Most "normal people" don't own capital in my little corner of the world I guess most of us see normal people as a collection of our self. As a normal person, I don't care about petty shoplifting but I would expect from the state for example to investigate murders.They're poorly investigated in general because they are hard to clear and you can't put them in your stats whereas arresting a youngster and taking his weed counts as a solved case.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
I think "normal people" will very much care about shoplifting when they see that prices go up to cover for that. Or, even worse, when store owners figure they can't be profitable in some area and go away altogether. I think people keep on thinking that "the rich" feel they have some kind of moral obligation to help them. As we've seen time and again, they do not. And they will even go out of their way to protect their money. See all the fiscal arrangements they set up to "optimize" taxation.
- cassepipe 3y ago
  > I think "normal people" will very much care about shoplifting when they see that prices go up to cover for that. Or, even worse, when store owners figure they can't be profitable in some area and go away altogether. How and when are they going to see that ? In my country, there newspapers headlines about how supermarkets have egregious margins. Is this true ? I don't know, but they don't mention shoplifting in the articles. > I think people keep on thinking that "the rich" feel they have some kind of moral obligation to help them. As we've seen time and again, they do not. The rich do not have a moral obligation to help us but they do have a legal obligation to pay their taxes and give back to societies they live in and benefit from like everyone else. I am not sure it's moral obligation but they could also have the decency to stop spending so much money in lobbying, politics and information campaigning in order not to pay their due proportionally to what they own. Is this not accurate anymore : https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/ https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w...