It seems cold in some ways to approve of this line of thinking, but is it any less cold-hearted to riot, burn other people's property?

But is it true? More importantly, how could you prove it was true?

It reads like a classic English class-war diatribe. The author seems rather upper-class.

Don't know much about the Mail, but I get very tired of the post-riot media commentary, which makes rioting sound like some abnormal social

event. The fact is that riots are common and regular. They happen in every country no matter its religion or politics. They have happened

across history, no matter the stage of development a society is in. People suppress memories and forget about riots, but any study of

history reveals minor riots (after sporting events) and major riots (at moments of economic or social upheaval) at regular intervals.

There is no evidence of immersive first-hand investigation by the author, so the claims appear to be judgemental opinion vs. analytical

I've watched enough BBC to know that this kind of rhetoric is classic English cultural friction, usually used to comedic ends.

The UK struggles to maintain their rich history of manners/tradition in the transition to a more modern informal/casual era.

I think the USA has a romantic ideal of democratic "civil disobedience" that leads to distaste for violent unrest in foreign countries.

Free Speech is an American founding principle, not a worldwide shared ethos.

" we're doing this to show the rich people we can do what we want" says the drunk girl with the looted bottle of wine

I agree that there are riots everywhere, but the continued looting and burning - we have 1 day riots after sporting events - not week long

they looted and burned a Sony distribution center - millions and millions of $ worth of merchandise

that smacks a little more of coordinated criminal opportunism

I liked the picture of the guy with 40 iPhones still in the bulk packaging\

Is it ever justifiable to riot? I'd argue that a civilized society must do all it can to discourage it, because of the long term impacts

Justifiable? depends on if you are the riotor or the riotee This guy's argument that this generation has gotten away from God

and how easily riots expand - We've experienced the 'bullying' behavior several times in our neigborhood over the years and have learned to

right and wrong

and is generally aimless - sure why not riot? not like the feds are going to do anything about it

report things quietly, don't confront becaue it puts us at risk of retaliation and we know property crimes are never solved

you and i will not likely be joining them...

SvenRichard, but you might, if the conditions were right.

If you are living in a third world dictatorship, then rioting may actually be the "right" thing to do,

That's sort of the point I was trying to make earlier. Riots seem simple, but they aren't. First, not everyone is rioting for the same

but the Bible says something about submitting to the authorities, IIRC

reason. Although there is such a thing as "mob mind," the individuals who come to a riot do so for a lot of reasons, not one simple reason.

Riots that, later, are viewed in a positive light are often seen as revolutions. The American revolution began as riots, lots of riots.

Looting was part of those riots. People took stuff, smashed stuff, burned stuff, and hurt people. And they were "normal, average folks" who

did it. I'm not saying that the violence in the UK is a "revolution" in the same way that the burning of a governor's house in colonial

times was a revolution. I'm simply pointing out that violence and, especially, group social violence is not unusual. It is especially

Where are the Tom Paines and Ben Franklins in Tottenham?

usual for boys and men between specific ages, because these boys and men often have less at stake in the social order.

Were the CCC and WPA efforts at providing outlets to that population and reducing the possiblity of increased social unrest as well as jobs?

Not trying to make a point, just asking if that was a stated factor

Yes, absolutely.

There has been a very specific strain of political theory in the US, that the purpose of social programs and entitlements is not, in fact,

to relieve poverty or to act as a safety net. This theory argues that entitlement programs are a cheap way to make a differential system of

power and economy stable. That is, entitlement is cheaper than social unrest and the potential (likelihood) of violence.

This is especially true of theorists who argue that the United States is an inherently violent culture. (This assessment is not meant to be

a critique. It is not a "let's ban all guns" line of argument). Historians and cultural anthropologists who argue this position believe that

the very things that make America great--individualism, freedom, relative liberty, distrust of government, and a strong believe in property

(and the right to protect property and rights) is what makes Americans generally prone to violence in moments of great stress or peril.

See, for example, this essay about political violence in the US.

Remember the arguments about Japan after the Tsunami, how looting and rioting didn't take place and how some in the media said that peace

would never happen in the US? Don't know how the US would respond after such a disaster, but it is clear that the "American Character,"

to the extent that there is such a thing, can be individually and collectively violent when we feel individually or collectively threatened.

Some push the thesis further to say that a direct threat isn't even necessary. A general anxiety, under the right conditions, can produce

violence. Regardless, some would argue that violence is an inherent aspect of human (sinful?) nature; that violence is made more possible

when individuals gather in mobs; that violence is likely to erupt when individuals feel "safe" in acting out, and that safety may result

from hiding behind a mask, joining in with others, and/or believing that you've got nothing left to lose. It is this later element, nothing

left to lose, that some political theorists would claim is the purpose of entitlements. It gives folks a stake, however small, in the game.

Victor Davis Hanson on political violence - violence has always been there, post-modern response different

Are Hanson's arguments persuasive? I don't think so, but I'm curious whether others feel they are.