What's going on in Paris?

[Ed]

but never for deliberate acts (which would be contrary to the whole idea of insurances, anyway).

Though I was told authoritatively that a life insurance policy will pay out for suicide if the act is 1 or 2 years after the policy purchase. Odd.

 

[Orwell]

This is not true. My first post said "they also face discrimination."

Your first post about unemployment was:
Your next three posts about econimics were jokes. The natural assumption was that you did not see unemployment as a problem. It was not until dozens of post later that you admitted that unemployment was part of the problem.

Natural assumptions are often wrong. I thought this thread was going to turn into another tedious round of French bashing, so I got into the defensive. As for my opinions on economics as a descriptive science, I wasn't kidding. To me, the interpretation of economic data is very dependent on the political opinion of the person doing the interpretation, that's a clear fact that I don't think is worth disputing.

You and most internet posters have an immediate tendency to look for points of disagreement instead of agreement. Especially when it is someone you habitually disagree with.

CBL

I agree. Even though I risk sounding like I'm invoking a Tu Quoque here, I should tell you that you're guilty of the same sin.

 

[CapelDodger]

This kinda supports a hypothesis I've been working on for a couple of years, regarding why Americans and Europeans, despite a common heritage, are in some ways so different.

The vast majority of us on the west side of the Atlantic are here because our ancestors were fed up with life in the Old Country. Most of them didn't know anyone here and a great many of them didn't speak the language, and had no clear idea how they would earn a living once they got here. They were often leaving behind friends and even family - my parents are people's exhibit A. They did all this because they no longer wanted to be taxed to death by the king, or burned to death by the priest, and were willing to risk the devil they didn't know as long as it got them away from the devil they did. Those restless, dissatisfied people came over here and they passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

Most migrants had an idea how they'd make a living in the US, and expected to make a better one than they would in Europe. Cheap land was the incentive for many. It wasn't to be had in Europe, where the land had been claimed long before. The mass migration of the late 19th/early 20thCE often involved groups from one European community joining or creating a linked community. Growing US industries recruited people directly from Europe (just as fading European industries recruited labour directly from the faded Empires, leading to the current problems).

Royal exactions and priestly burnings were pretty thin on the ground by then.

(There was a similar rush in the late 19thCE into the Ukrainian territory newly captured from the Ottomans, which was effectively empty. Apart from savages, Cossacks in this case.)

The case of immigration from the European imperial territories to Europe is very different, of course. There were better opportunities, of course, otherwise they wouldn't have come, but they were coming in at the bottom of an existing society, not creating a new one.

They left behind people who liked the way things were in Europe; very few princes and dukes came over to strike out a new life in the New World. And they also left behind the people who might not have liked the way things were in Europe, but were more afraid of the devil they didn't know than the devil they already did. And those people passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

The people "left behind" (a rather revealing phrase, IMO) who didn't like things as they were changed Europe drastically. A more difficult task than creating a society without entrenched interest groups, so they weren't necessarily taking the easy way out. Many people do actually feel an attachment to their homes, their communities, their friends and families, even when opportunities beckon elsewhere. Material benefits aren't everything, after all. A sense of history, a sense of belonging, these are good too.

So today we see the Americans here shaking our heads in baffled wonder at the Frenchmen who won't shoot at people trying to burn down their homes and their businesses. And the French here shaking their heads in baffled wonder at people who would shoot at someone who was trying to burn down their homes and their businesses.

There's a different value put on life vis-a-vis property. I don't think there's any question about that.

 

[Orwell]

This kinda supports a hypothesis I've been working on for a couple of years, regarding why Americans and Europeans, despite a common heritage, are in some ways so different.

The vast majority of us on the west side of the Atlantic are here because our ancestors were fed up with life in the Old Country. Most of them didn't know anyone here and a great many of them didn't speak the language, and had no clear idea how they would earn a living once they got here. They were often leaving behind friends and even family - my parents are people's exhibit A. They did all this because they no longer wanted to be taxed to death by the king, or burned to death by the priest, and were willing to risk the devil they didn't know as long as it got them away from the devil they did. Those restless, dissatisfied people came over here and they passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

They left behind people who liked the way things were in Europe; very few princes and dukes came over to strike out a new life in the New World. And they also left behind the people who might not have liked the way things were in Europe, but were more afraid of the devil they didn't know than the devil they already did. And those people passed their lives' lessons and their values on to their children.

So today we see the Americans here shaking our heads in baffled wonder at the Frenchmen who won't shoot at people trying to burn down their homes and their businesses. And the French here shaking their heads in baffled wonder at people who would shoot at someone who was trying to burn down their homes and their businesses.

Big generalisations, so large in fact that they're probably worthless, and are more an indication of your own biases than anything else. Let me point out the bleeding obvious for you: there's quite a lot of frenchmen, particularly on the right, that would probably not hesitate shooting these rioters. And fortunately, I don't think that your particular thirst for blood is a trait that can be generalised to all americans . And how about Canadians, eh? How do they fit into your little model?

Your little model also doesn't take into account that many of those "people left behind" went on to radically change Europe during the XIX and XX century, sometimes violently, and sometimes not for the best.

 

[Manny]

Though I was told authoritatively that a life insurance policy will pay out for suicide if the act is 1 or 2 years after the policy purchase. Odd.

Correct, but in the case of life insurance policies the guy who gets paid is different from the guy who is insured (for obvious reasons). A policy will not pay out if the beneficiary committed homicide upon the insured.

 

[Ed]

Correct, but in the case of life insurance policies the guy who gets paid is different from the guy who is insured (for obvious reasons). A policy will not pay out if the beneficiary committed homicide upon the insured.

Manny: did you have to say "for obvious reasons"?

But, I think that our cowering friend might very well find himself wiped out. Odd mindset.

 

[davefoc]

Dude, I know your avatar is John Wayne, but gunning down a person to prevent destruction of property? Shirley, you jest!

One of the results of our modern, protected life is that the reality of the world is hidden from obvious view.

The fact is that the only reason you can own property at all is because you or somebody else is willing to risk their lives to protect it and is willing to kill if necessary to stop people from taking it.

The world view that you (chran) have expressed with the sentence I quoted is pure unadulterated fantasy. Risking lives for property is something that most of us do every day. I own a small apartment building. When I confront a bum who is doing something that I judge to be unacceptable on my property I might be killed. On the other hand, I would lose tenants if bums are allowed to engage in whatever activity they want on my property. I routinely have to climb up a ladder to the top of a two story roof. Death is an easily forseeable outcome of an activity like that if I make a mistake. If there was a more serious threat against my property I would absolutely expect the police to come and risk their lives to defend the property and to potentially shoot somebody if it was required.

If most people didn't have attitudes something along the lines of what I have expressed above the creation of wealth would be impossible. Rightly or wrongly the existence of that wealth is now an integral part of infrastructure that keeps people alive. So in the end the defense of wealth is also a defense of life and abandoning the defense of that wealth because somebody might be killed is a policy guaranteed to result in the destruction of civilization as we know it.

 

[CapelDodger]

The majority of Arabs (Algerians, Moroccans, Malians, etc.) came to France as soldiers and laborers at a time when their countries of origins were still French colonies. They therefore were French citizens. Some more were "invited" to come afterwards since France lacked labourers in some industrial and agricultural sectors.

One little niggle : I find the term "Arab" most unhelpful in this context. It's such a wide-ranging term. "North-African" is more descriptive.

The lack of labour in certain sectors was due to the demand by newer, more productive and profitable industries. Older manufacturing sectors, such as textiles, couldn't compete for wages. Neither could service industries. So they brought in cheap labour, effectively importing third-world labour so that they could still compete with third-world industry. It softened the impact of Imperial retreat, but it turned out to be a holding-operation, a temporary lease-of-life. But the imported labour, and offspring, are still present. A new community without its raison d'etre. It's a problem. A major problem. But it hasn't been seriously addressed.

I don't think radical Islam has much, if anything, to do with the riots.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1635479,00.html

When calm returned on Monday, after 63 cars had been burnt and 53 people arrested, the police could not claim credit. Spirits had been calmed thanks to the intervention of a handful of young men from the mosque, known as les grands-frères, who stood between the rioters and the police, shouting 'Allahu akbar!' - 'God is great'.

Not everything is about Islam. People might claim it is, but it ain't necessarily so. I'm not convinced the rioting was started by the deaths of those two boys. I think it started because of the local blackout they caused. Their deaths became a justification after the fact.

 

[BPSCG]

The people "left behind" (a rather revealing phrase, IMO)

Revealing of what?

who didn't like things as they were changed Europe drastically.

Well, they were still slaughtering each other in frightful numbers just a few years before I was born, and three of its major powers were still charmed with the idea of rule by a man with a gun and a secret police.

There's a different value put on life vis-a-vis property. I don't think there's any question about that.

Since you seem to disagree with my hypothesis (and I don't claim to have it completely worked out), why do you believe that's the case?

 

[chran]

I found the whole method of thinking bizzare, someone is burining your store and you hide and wait till it's over and not even try to stop them. What the heck kind of mindset is it?

I'm not saying I wouldn't try to stop them, but immediately reaching for the gun, a potentially lethal instrument, is not warranted in this case.

I think human life is more valuable than property.

Firebombing a building which has done nothing to you is not a proportional response in the first place. It is the firebomber who has complete control of the process. He keeps his matchbook in his pocket and limits himself to glowering or yelling or whatever and everyone's happy.

Sure. But I still don't think it's ok to shoot him if he doesn't keep "it" in his pocket.

[...] There's a different value put on life vis-a-vis property. I don't think there's any question about that.

I totally agree with that. Europeans do seem to think differently than 'mericans.

Imagine that!

 

[chran]

Risking lives for property is something that most of us do every day. I own a small apartment building. When I confront a bum who is doing something that I judge to be unacceptable on my property I might be killed.

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to control what goes on on your property, but having the mindset that you're willing to kill to protect it?

No. I don't agree with that. That's what the police are for.

I mean, the police are there to scare people off your property - not kill them

 

[Grammatron]

I'm not saying I wouldn't try to stop them, but immediately reaching for the gun, a potentially lethal instrument, is not warranted in this case.

Well first I'll ask them to take their firebomb and leave the vicinity of my property. If they do not comply I will wield my weapon and ask them again, then all bets are off.

Perhaps I'd use a gun with tear gas or rubber bullets if I had an option, does that make it more reasonable for you?

 

[Grammatron]

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to control what goes on on your property, but having the mindset that you're willing to kill to protect it?

No. I don't agree with that. That's what the police are for.

Are you implying that it's ok for police to kill to protect property? Or am I misreading your post.

 

[chran]

Well first I'll ask them to take their firebomb and leave the vicinity of my property. If they do not comply I will wield my weapon and ask them again, then all bets are off.

Perhaps I'd use a gun with tear gas or rubber bullets if I had an option, does that make it more reasonable for you?

Yes. I think non-lethal weapons are fine.

And yes, non-lethal weapons CAN be used to kill, but with a non-lethal weapon, there's not the same implied intent as with a lethal weapon.

Are you implying that it's ok for police to kill to protect property? Or am I misreading your post.

I edited my post right after I posted. My meaning should be clearer now

 

[Manny]

That's what the police are for.

I mean, the police are there to scare people off your property - not kill them

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I'm all for calling the cops first to the extent it's practical. My icon is John Wayne, not Charlie Bronson. But how are the cops doing here? Are they preventing people from having their livelyhoods destroyed by thugs? On what night of the riots is it fair to conclude that the police force we've all agreed to be taxed for and subject to isn't up to the job and that property owners have to do it for themselves? Second night? Eighth night?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Orwell
I agree. Even though I risk sounding like I'm invoking a Tu Quoque here, I should tell you that you're guilty of the same sin.

Bien sur, mais j'essaye.

CBL

 

[BPSCG]

Big generalisations, so large in fact that they're probably worthless, and are more an indication of your own biases than anything else.

As stated above, I don't claim this hypothesis is by any means a finished product. It may even be wrong, in fact. I'd be delighted if you could show how it's wrong, instead of just tossing out a casual insult.

Let me point out the bleeding obvious for you: there's quite a lot of frenchmen, particularly on the right, that would probably not hesitate shooting these rioters.

If it's so "bleeding obvious", why have they not done so? At least one Frenchman* on this thread says people can own hunting rifles there without a permit, so if it's so "bleeding obvious" that the right-wing nutjobs would get a big charge out of gunning down a guy with a molotov cocktail, you'd think the streets would be littered with dead rioters and crashed scooters. So explain why it's so "bleeding obvious," 'cuz I, for one, sure don't see it.

And fortunately, I don't think that your particular thirst for blood

Back off. I have never pointed a gun at anyone, and pray to the FSM (blessed be His noodley appendage) I never have to.

Your little model also doesn't take into account that many of those "people left behind" went on to radically change Europe during the XIX and XX century, sometimes violently, and sometimes not for the best.

Yes, very violently, due to their perverted affection for emperors, kings, and dictators. Damn near destroyed themselves the last time out.

*Howcome you can say "Frenchman" or "Englishman", and that's okay, but saying "Chinaman" makes you a racist...?

 

[Chaos]

Though I was told authoritatively that a life insurance policy will pay out for suicide if the act is 1 or 2 years after the policy purchase. Odd.

Oh, right... That´s the one big exception. But then, technically speaking, it´s Life Assurance, not Life Insurance, so I´d still be right about insurances and non-technically, life insurance/assurance is quite a bit different for the rest of the industry.
Long story short: I stand corrected; IIRC the exclusionary period is three years in Germany. Which is kinda odd if you ask me. Not the three-year period, but the fact that the exclusion ends at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Revealing of what?

The assumption that there's a "going forward" in which some are "left behind". Progress being, as an unconscious axiom, becoming 'Murrican. You could have used "those who stayed", but you chose "left behind". I'm no disciple of Freud, but I'm a connoisseur of nuance.

Well, they were still slaughtering each other in frightful numbers just a few years before I was born, and three of its major powers were still charmed with the idea of rule by a man with a gun and a secret police.

The advance of Europe from royal and priestly bondage to representative government over the last few centuries has been a bloody saga, but it was done. I doubt things would have been much different in the US if the whole population of Europe had moved in during the 19thCE. Despite the open land the US managed to have a pretty substantial blood-letting in the 1860's.

Since you seem to disagree with my hypothesis (and I don't claim to have it completely worked out), why do you believe that's the case?

Your expressed opinion vis-a-vis chran's, for starters.

What exactly is your hypothesis again? That Europeans are the left-behind scaredy-cat wusses who engage in constant bloody warfare with each other while 'Murricans represent the go-get-it-from-the-natives spirit? Whatever, I find your premises regarding the nature of US immigration simplistic and erroneous. More a national foundation-myth than actual history.

 

[chran]

But how are the cops doing here? Are they preventing people from having their livelyhoods destroyed by thugs?

No, they're not.

And don't get ME wrong. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not saying that I would stand idly by. I would try to stop someone from entering/destroying my property if it were at all practical. I mean, a 6"5' bodybuilder, I would probably think twice about confronting ...

And if the situation developed from "Please leave my property" to a physical thing, I would do my very best to put him down before he could put me down. But then the stakes would be different. Not my property, but my life.