Causes and Effects of the London/England Riots

[aelf]

Many have written posts showing socio-economical/political explanations to these riots, while not mentioning the rioters. If it's all seen as society's fault, all responsibility, save for a few obvious criminals, are taken away from the rioters. This also means that the socio-economical/political explanations not just are explanations, but also have become excuses for the rioters.

Eh, the rioters have certainly not been ignored in the discourse, especially in the last page or so of this thread. They just haven't been the focus because, frankly, there isn't much to say except admonishments not to resort to violence and that the rioting isn't productive - things that have also been said in this thread even before you came back complaining. You just want the discourse to be completely focused on the rioters while ignoring everything that is actually important in the longer term.

 

[Winston Hughes]

That is just one perspective on what the welfare State is, and unfortunately it is not the way the most vocal proponents of social reform see it.

But it's that idea of the welfare state which actually operates in Britain. We can hardly blame today's problems on a version of the welfare state which only exists in the minds of some would-be social reformers.

Many people think welfare can be used to re-engineer society in various ways - for example, paying for more university places for minorities/women, increasing upward mobility, prioritising training on poor areas, building youth clubs, providing government jobs to artificially inflate the size of the middle class, etc.

Youth clubs and vocational training are generally seen as common sense policies, and (to my knowledge) face no principled opposition from anywhere on the political spectrum. None of the other things you mention actually exists in Britain today.

The way welfare is perceived, and the social ends to which it is deployed, can be complex. So for many people, and for many government projects, they are designed to "cure" various social ills rather than simply limiting themselves to a social safety net.

Even if I were to accept that the welfare state is intended to fully cure all of Britain's social problems (which I don't), the failure to achieve that lofty goal would not invalidate the actual policies one bit. Just because we can't solve all problems in one fell swoop, it doesn't mean we totally abandon the idea of using the power of the state to improve things.

 

[Ayn Rand]

But it's that idea of the welfare state which actually operates in Britain. We can hardly blame today's problems on a version of the welfare state which only exists in the minds of some would-be social reformers.



Youth clubs and vocational training are generally seen as common sense policies, and (to my knowledge) face no principled opposition from anywhere on the political spectrum. None of the other things you mention actually exists in Britain today.



Even if I were to accept that the welfare state is intended to fully cure all of Britain's social problems (which I don't), the failure to achieve that lofty goal would not invalidate the actual policies one bit. Just because we can't solve all problems in one fell swoop, it doesn't mean we totally abandon the idea of using the power of the state to improve things.

You're essentially arguing that Britain's welfare policies are a "safety net" and nothing else.

So then what about social services, universal education, non-essential NHS intervention, council housing [which you don't need to be homeless to get], subsidised [until recently] higher education, government training initiatives, free legal aid, government playgrounds, leisure centres and so on? [not to mention legal interventions such as the minimum wage, maternity leave etc].


There are many things that the government does which do not in any way fall into the category of "social safety net". They are quite clearly attempts at engineering an egalitarian society or of improving the outcomes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. To argue that all this is just a "safety net" seems somewhat ill-founded.

Therefore, it's quite reasonable to question the failure of this welfare system - you can't really dismiss the criticism by saying "it's only a safety net" as that really doesn't describe the reality of the expenditures we've been making as a country on social welfare. We have spent an absolute fortune, and it hasn't worked - quite possibly because welfare itself is a flawed way of tackling these problems/people.

 

[aelf]

We have spent an absolute fortune, and it hasn't worked - quite possibly because welfare itself is a flawed way of tackling these problems/people.

So what is the right way to deal with these problems/people, Miss Rand?

 

[Ayn Rand]

So what is the right way to deal with these problems/people, Miss Rand?

If people who believe in a "progressive, middle way" wish to see their pet social project succeed, then they must learn to balance rights and responsibilities. An individual cannot be allowed to take too many rights at the expense of society, and society cannot be allowed to place too many responsibilites on the individual - otherwise, they become hostile to one another and mutually destructive.

The only context in which people can learn this balance is one of freedom, so that the solution to these problem areas is to restrain and limit government spending and support while simultaneously removing burdens on individuals so that they can achieve a greater freedom in their lives. At the same time, people must accept the real nature of the World and realise that not all social problems or personal misfortunes can be solved and that it is often counter-productive to push too hard for solutions that do not work in reality.

 

[aelf]

So, basically, your solution is not to do anything about the problems and let them sort themselves out?

 

[Ayn Rand]

So, basically, your solution is not to do anything about the problems and let them sort themselves out?

That's not at all what I said - but what do you think would be the best way to solve the problems?

 

[Takhisis]

So, basically, your solution is not to do anything about the problems and let them sort themselves out?

Spoken like a true Libertarian!

 

[aelf]

That's not at all what I said - but what do you think would be the best way to solve the problems?

You said this:

The only context in which people can learn this balance is one of freedom, so that the solution to these problem areas is to restrain and limit government spending and support while simultaneously removing burdens on individuals so that they can achieve a greater freedom in their lives. At the same time, people must accept the real nature of the World and realise that not all social problems or personal misfortunes can be solved and that it is often counter-productive to push too hard for solutions that do not work in reality.

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. I think that's the only thing that can make a difference in whether your position is about doing nothing or about doing something. Essentially, that something needs to be explained.

Personally, I would continue with the social programs. Maybe trim a little if necessary, but first go after the rich who evade taxes. You might want to read this article that explains why austerity is a silly way to solve the current economic problems and ensure long term competitiveness. Parts of the programs may need to be re-evaluated, but, of course, the problems also have to do with British politics and the police.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You said this:



I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. I think that's the only thing that can make a difference in whether your position is about doing nothing or about doing something. Essentially, that something needs to be explained.

Personally, I would continue with the social programs. Maybe trim a little if necessary, but first go after the rich who evade taxes. You might want to read this article that explains why austerity is a silly way to solve the current economic problems and ensure long term competitiveness. Parts of the programs may need to be re-evaluated, but, of course, the problems also have to do with British politics and the police.

I'm referring to all forms of government really, but mostly to taxation which is at ridiculous levels in Britain.

But putting that to one side, even if you don't agree with "austerity" [a word that can mean many different things in itself] then surely you must agree that the current spending regime is not sustainable over the long-term. I don't agree personally with any kind of social programs or welfare, however I would think that those who do believe in them would realise that their interests are best served by moderation and self-imposed limits.

Also, the whole manner of demanding further welfare spending is [in Britain] currently being undertaken in a quite aggressive and offensive way. Welfare is being demanded as a "right", because the rich are "immoral", etc. There is seemingly no real attempt to bring in sustainable, limited welfare policies that are designed for harmony with society, with freedom and with the wider political spectrum.

Thus, while I agree that welfare can be effective in one regard - as a social safety net - I also think that it fails almost completely in the other regard [as social engineering]. It is this second characteristic of welfare that is really under discussion [or appears to be] between the left-right divide.

 

[aelf]

I'm referring to all forms of government really, but mostly to taxation which is at ridiculous levels in Britain.

But putting that to one side, even if you don't agree with "austerity" [a word that can mean many different things in itself] then surely you must agree that the current spending regime is not sustainable over the long-term. I don't agree personally with any kind of social programs or welfare, however I would think that those who do believe in them would realise that their interests are best served by moderation and self-imposed limits.

This doesn't really answer anything. What do you mean by moderation? And who are the rich to be able to lecture everybody else on what that means anyway? They don't seem to be particularly given to moderation, if the financial crisis has shown us anything.

But, most importantly, what does moderation entail? And how does that solve the ongoing socio-economic problems behind the riots that are supposedly the result of the failure of welfare spending?

As for what is meant by austerity, there is only one way in which the word is commonly used in today's context when discussing the economy.

Also, the whole manner of demanding further welfare spending is [in Britain] currently being undertaken in a quite aggressive and offensive way. Welfare is being demanded as a "right", because the rich are "immoral", etc. There is seemingly no real attempt to bring in sustainable, limited welfare policies that are designed for harmony with society, with freedom and with the wider political spectrum.

But the rich and powerful have shown themselves to be pretty much immoral, which anybody can see if they have been keeping up with news for the past few years and don't already sympathise with the rich.

Thus, while I agree that welfare can be effective in one regard - as a social safety net - I also think that it fails almost completely in the other regard [as social engineering]. It is this second characteristic of welfare that is really under discussion [or appears to be] between the left-right divide.

So if there is no social engineering being done, what would happen? Will the problems solve themselves? How?

 

[Ayn Rand]

This doesn't really answer anything. What do you mean by moderation?

Limited aims and political restraint in the goals set - most notably, limits to the degree of expenditure and interference in the country's social and economic life. As I pointed out initially, a balance must be maintained between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities demanded by society, otherwise individuals and society become mutually destructive towards each other and chaos will eventually result.

And who are the rich to be able to lecture everybody else on what that means anyway? They don't seem to be particularly given to moderation, if the financial crisis has shown us anything.

It makes no difference who speaks the idea, only whether the idea is true.

But, most importantly, what does moderation entail? And how does that solve the ongoing socio-economic problems behind the riots that are supposedly the result of the failure of welfare spending?

These kind of problems can never be fully solved because it is not in the nature of reality to eliminate all social and personal misfortunes. No Country has ever been able to do it, so there is no proven solution and one must therefore be careful about demanding too great an exertion because this exertion will almost certainly be a waste of effort.

As for what is meant by austerity, there is only one way in which the word is commonly used in today's context when discussing the economy.

But the rich and powerful have shown themselves to be pretty much immoral, which anybody can see if they have been keeping up with news for the past few years and don't already sympathise with the rich.

So if there is no social engineering being done, what would happen? Will the problems solve themselves? How?

What does it matter if the rich and powerful are in some way immoral [by your standards]? Do you think that this makes welfare and social engineering good, just because you identify something else that is bad? A bad idea doesn't become good just because you can point at something else that is potentially also bad. This kind of connection is false, but it is perpetuated endlessly because it plays on deep-seated resentments, or assumptions and prejudices towards the wealthy [which are irrelevant to whether the policies of welfare work or not].

 

[useless]

I think you might benefit from the death of the welfare state, but the rest of us wouldn't.

People would starve, as they can no longer afford food as they lack money comming in, people would die from easily preventable diseases, due to the lack of a NHS, children would go uneducated.

The nation would suffer as a whole, whilst a small elite, who were already in a posistion to benefit, would rise. Merit wouldn't count for anything, because only the rich could afford to educate their children.

 

[aelf]

Limited aims and political restraint in the goals set - most notably, limits to the degree of expenditure and interference in the country's social and economic life. As I pointed out initially, a balance must be maintained between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities demanded by society, otherwise individuals and society become mutually destructive towards each other and chaos will eventually result.

Rights and responsibilities aren't economic concepts, so a change in economic policies would not be able to redefine them.

It makes no difference who speaks the idea, only whether the idea is true.

It does make a difference. Welcome to politics.

These kind of problems can never be fully solved because it is not in the nature of reality to eliminate all social and personal misfortunes. No Country has ever been able to do it, so there is no proven solution and one must therefore be careful about demanding too great an exertion because this exertion will almost certainly be a waste of effort.

So, again, you're proposing doing nothing?

What does it matter if the rich and powerful are in some way immoral [by your standards]? Do you think that this makes welfare and social engineering good, just because you identify something else that is bad? A bad idea doesn't become good just because you can point at something else that is potentially also bad. This kind of connection is false, but it is perpetuated endlessly because it plays on deep-seated resentments, or assumptions and prejudices towards the wealthy [which are irrelevant to whether the policies of welfare work or not].

Like I said, welcome to politics. If you can't lead by example, then no one will follow you.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Like I said, welcome to politics. If you can't lead by example, then no one will follow you.

And if your policies fail in the fires of looting and rioting, initiated by the very people you were trying to help, then no-one will follow you either

 

[useless]

And if your policies fail in the fires of looting and rioting, initiated by the very people you were trying to help, then no-one will follow you either

You literally advocate doing nothing. At least Aelf has policies, to speak of, regardless of how good or bad they may be. Just to clarify, I'm not trolling but you can't really criticise someone's policies on a specific matter, when you don't have ones for it yourself.

 

[aelf]

And if your policies fail in the fires of looting and rioting, initiated by the very people you were trying to help, then no-one will follow you either

And why is there reason to believe that it is the failure of social programmes qua social programmes (and not social programmes with poor implementation) that is responsible for the riots? I had hoped that you might show this by recommending alternatives and explaining how they would solve the problems. Unfortunately, it seems so far all I've managed to wrangle from you is that you'd have nothing done.

What a disappointment

 

[Takhisis]

You really expect to win us over by plainly stating that it doesn't matter whether the rich and powerful are morally sound or not?

 

[Ayn Rand]

And why is there reason to believe that it is the failure of social programmes qua social programmes (and not social programmes with poor implementation) that is responsible for the riots? I had hoped that you might show this by recommending alternatives and explaining how they would solve the problems. Unfortunately, it seems so far all I've managed to wrangle from you is that you'd have nothing done.

What a disappointment

So the last 30 years of social programs were poorly implemented in those areas? Those policies were implemented by the same people and political outlook [broadly] as those who today advocate a continuation and increase of social welfare to "assist" the areas hit by rioting.

Can you please elaborate on how further welfare can be justified and what will be different "next time around"?

You really expect to win us over by plainly stating that it doesn't matter whether the rich and powerful are morally sound or not?

It doesn't matter to the issue of whether welfare works for the recipients. It matters in other social dimensions of course, but it doesn't make a bad argument into a good one to simply repeat this mantra.

 

[useless]

So the last 30 years of social programs were poorly implemented in those areas? Those policies were implemented by the same people and political outlook [broadly] as those who today advocate a continuation and increase of social welfare to "assist" the areas hit by rioting.

Can you please elaborate on how further welfare can be justified and what will be different "next time around"?

I can guarantee you, that if you disenfranchise people and take away what little they have left, there will be similar riots in the future, if not more.