What's going on in Paris?

[Skeptic]

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?

Certainly. The reason this is not disproportionate force is that it is proportionate to what it would take to stop this person from destroying your property, not to the value of the property.

Example: suppose you sit on your porch and some passerby takes a short cut through your lawn without asking permission. Is it proportionate response to shoot them? No, because if it's just an innocent passerby, it is very likely that merely talking to him would be enough.

Here, however, it is obviously not possible to talk to the attacker, to convince him not to do it, or to call the police to stop him, due to the breakdown in order. Nothing less than a serious threat in deadly force would stop him. So it is a proportionate response--not because property is worth more than human life per se, but because you have the right to use deadly force to protect it if it is the only reasonable means to do so.

If you are not willing to use deadly force to protect your property against those whom only deadly force will stop from destroying it, it is not really your property; it actually belongs to the nearest thug and rioter who decides to torch it.

You are just using it, temporarily, at their pleasure.

 

[gtc]

This seems to be more than isolated incidents to me.

This map shows that attacks have occurred all over France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4417096.stm

So far at least one person has died and several innocent bystanders have been seriously injured along with police officers. There have also been over 6000 vehicles torched. Even on normal days several dozen vehicles are torched in France.

 

[Freakshow]

If you are not willing to use deadly force to protect your property against those whom only deadly force will stop from destroying it, it is not really your property; it actually belongs to the nearest thug and rioter who decides to torch it.

You are just using it, temporarily, at their pleasure.

 

[Just thinking]

If you are not willing to use deadly force to protect your property against those whom only deadly force will stop from destroying it, it is not really your property; it actually belongs to the nearest thug and rioter who decides to torch it.

You are just using it, temporarily, at their pleasure.

Agreed here as well -- as I'm sure others too will join in.

Plus -- who knows what else these rioters will do once upon your property without your permission? If you think you'll always be sure just where the violence stops there's $1,000,000 waiting for you around here somewhere.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Flo
In this case, there's a point missing: the fact that, should there be employment, the victims of bigotry are aware that they will not benefit from it. That's why I answered that I wish things were so simple as to reverse some economic policies: the main task ahead is to prove to a whole segment of French society, mostly those originating from the former colonies, that they will be treated as the French citizens they are. It means really doing something so that discrimination in the allocation of jobs and housing becomes a thing of the past ...

I am not familiar with the problems the immigrant (or children of immigrants) are facing in France. As I read more, I hear more and more troubling reports of the discrimination. But it is very difficult for the government to change.

Affirmative action can work but it ends up causing resentment. I would only support it if the discrimination were severe. The major political parties can choose more minority members. But other than that, the government is fairly limited in its actions - as far as I know.

Changing laws to reduce unemployment is beneficial to all.

CBL

 

[Jocko]

If you are not willing to use deadly force to protect your property against those whom only deadly force will stop from destroying it, it is not really your property; it actually belongs to the nearest thug and rioter who decides to torch it.

You are just using it, temporarily, at their pleasure.

Right on - if Americans can't countenance the government seizing personal property without due process, what makes someone think we'll let some degenerate private citizen get away with the same thing?

It's not my property that's necessarily worth more than an attacker's life... it's my RIGHTS that are worth more.

 

[YoPopa]

In this case, there's a point missing: the fact that, should there be employment, the victims of bigotry are aware that they will not benefit from it. That's why I answered that I wish things were so simple as to reverse some economic policies: the main task ahead is to prove to a whole segment of French society, mostly those originating from the former colonies, that they will be treated as the French citizens they are. It means really doing something so that discrimination in the allocation of jobs and housing becomes a thing of the past ...

I find the use of the word "allocation" very interesting in this context. Was this a translation error or do you believe that jobs and housing should be distributed? If the answer to that is yes then that explains a lot to me about why these riots are taking place.

This is much like saying that the government owes jobs and housing to everyone. If my neighbor owes me something and is not paying the debt I can take him to court and get satisfaction. If my government owes me something and is not paying there is nothing much that can be done about that. I suppose I could vote the politicians out of office and get a new government to re-distribute the wealth, but these people are in the minority right?

It seems to me that these rioters are trying, in their own clumsy but probably effective way, to get what they think they are owed. It's actually rational behavior from the communities viewpoint. They have already been promised that a few bones will be thrown to them as soon a things quiet down.

And there is also the issue of pride. The idea that my government had to allocate me a job and a house would be so degrading that I would have to feel very bad about myself. Self loathing can lead to some really nasty behaviors.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Certainly. The reason this is not disproportionate force is that it is proportionate to what it would take to stop this person from destroying your property, not to the value of the property.

Suppose a child went into a corner shop, and stole a candy bar. Since the value of the property is not an issue, it is perfectly legitimate for the store owner to shoot the child dead in order to stop him.

 

[epepke]

It has nothing to do with them being Muslims (a lot of those participating in the current violences are christians, from French and African descent), but everything with being called scum, refused jobs and decent housing for living in rotten suburbs, and identifying with the rioter's grievances if not with the means to express them.

OK. Maybe you can explain this, then.

Why are they called scum and refused jobs and decent housing?

Arabic Muslim immigrants and descendents therefrom in the United States have a median family income of around $68,000, which is damn good and about 150% the median for all people. Muslims in the US in general have a median income of about $55,000, which is still higher than the median for all people. The number is dragged down by African-American Muslim converts, who have a median income of about $35,000 (which is still better than my income right now). The reasons why African-Americans are discriminated against have been well studied, and they're easy to look up. Whuffo the discrimination against Muslims in France, even the grandchildren of immigrants?

 

[Freakshow]

Suppose a child went into a corner shop, and stole a candy bar. Since the value of the property is not an issue, it is perfectly legitimate for the store owner to shoot the child dead in order to stop him.

Straw man.

 

[Elind]

Suppose a child went into a corner shop, and stole a candy bar. Since the value of the property is not an issue, it is perfectly legitimate for the store owner to shoot the child dead in order to stop him.

No; and an explaination is not called for if you don't already understand it. Perhaps you are trolling for attention? Congrats.

 

[Elind]

I do mean that. Fundie Christianity will be tainted by unpopular Republican policies, such as the Iraq War - which, as far as I can see, isn't a major fundie issue. The Republicans meanwhile will be tainted by purely fundie issues, such as ID. A Republican-Fundie alliance will be limited to the intersection of two sets of voters, rather than the sum. The Democrats will benefit from that, by abstention if nothing else. When this becomes clear, Republicans will start rowing away from the fundies pretty damn quick. With John McCain calling stroke .

Two governors lost to the Republicans today. Maybe my pessimism is unfounded, although I do hear that one of them was immitating conservatives, which could mean......

 

[Flo]

I find the use of the word "allocation" very interesting in this context. Was this a translation error or do you believe that jobs and housing should be distributed? If the answer to that is yes then that explains a lot to me about why these riots are taking place.

Translation problem: in French if you apply for a lodging or a job, the owner or the employer will "allocate" it to you (or to someone else).

This is much like saying that the government owes jobs and housing to everyone. If my neighbor owes me something and is not paying the debt I can take him to court and get satisfaction. If my government owes me something and is not paying there is nothing much that can be done about that. I suppose I could vote the politicians out of office and get a new government to re-distribute the wealth, but these people are in the minority right?

It seems to me that these rioters are trying, in their own clumsy but probably effective way, to get what they think they are owed. It's actually rational behavior from the communities viewpoint. They have already been promised that a few bones will be thrown to them as soon a things quiet down.

What the French government owes to every citizens and residents of the country is "liberté, égalité, fraternité". According to the constitution and laws, there are only individuals judged on their personnal merits, not members of some sub-community who can be refused a job they're qualified for, housing they can afford, hobbies and distractions, by government agencies or private owners/employers, or harrassed by the police and repeatedly insulted by officials, on the basis of their skin color, ethnicity, religion, etc., . The government has repeatedly failed, or refused to, enforce its laws against discrimination.

In this respect, you're perfectly right about a great deal of the motivations of the rioters (there's of course a minority who just enjoys trouble, plus those who view police harrassment as a problem for their illegal trafficking, political/religious rabble-rousers, etc.).

 

[Flo]

OK. Maybe you can explain this, then.

Why are they called scum and refused jobs and decent housing?

Arabic Muslim immigrants and descendents therefrom in the United States have a median family income of around $68,000, which is damn good and about 150% the median for all people. Muslims in the US in general have a median income of about $55,000, which is still higher than the median for all people. The number is dragged down by African-American Muslim converts, who have a median income of about $35,000 (which is still better than my income right now). The reasons why African-Americans are discriminated against have been well studied, and they're easy to look up. Whuffo the discrimination against Muslims in France, even the grandchildren of immigrants?

First and foremost, France has still not digested the loss of its colonies, mostly of Algeria. There's in particular a strong resentment from the "Pieds-noirs", Frenchpeople who had to flee Algeria in 1964, with a refusal to look into what the French army has done during the war in Algeria and in France (torture, killing of a few hundreds of peaceful demonstrators in 1961 in Paris, etc.).

Secondly, throughout its colonial history and more so after WWII, France has "imported" poor, illiterate, single, men to compensate for the lack of labourers in the rebuilding of the country. They have been parked in slums, dilapidated housings, etc., and when they had their family join them, sent even further away from most opportunities to better their condition.

So, they mostly constitute the bulk of the poorest people in France, poverty has never bred respect, and France is no different than any other country in this respect ...

 

[Flo]

I am not familiar with the problems the immigrant (or children of immigrants) are facing in France. As I read more, I hear more and more troubling reports of the discrimination. But it is very difficult for the government to change.

Affirmative action can work but it ends up causing resentment. I would only support it if the discrimination were severe. The major political parties can choose more minority members. But other than that, the government is fairly limited in its actions - as far as I know.

Changing laws to reduce unemployment is beneficial to all.

CBL

Applying existing laws against discrimination (that is, actually punishing those guilty of discriminatory practices) would go a very long way too.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Straw man.

No, reductio ad absurdum.You claim the value is of no consequence. Therefore I give an example where the value is negligible.

 

[Skeptic]

Suppose a child went into a corner shop, and stole a candy bar. Since the value of the property is not an issue, it is perfectly legitimate for the store owner to shoot the child dead in order to stop him.

No, it isn't. First, a child has diminished capacity for moral action and therefore a diminished responsibility for his actions. You would not be justified in shooting a child or a person with Down syndrome even if they tried to burn down your property--but this is precisely because we assume they do not have the capacity to fully realize what they are doing, or to form a criminal intent to do so in the first place. A child who happened to burn down a house is morally the same as someone who burned down a house completely by accident, since there is no intention to do so in both cases. We do not have the right to shoot someone who accidentally sets fire to our house.

Second, there are obviously many other ways to stop a child from stealing--like asking him to give it back. To go back to the Down synrome example, a person with Down syndrome is likely to obey a caretaker or any authority figure far more willingly than a thug; shouting at them, or the equivalent, would surely stop them from burning your house. So you are not justified in stopping it by shooting when shouting or restraining would do.

Third, the law is not concerned with trivialities: a candy bar is probably not a reason to shoot someone dead, but a threat to torch your property is.

What is annoying about this, Nick, is that you surely realize all this, and that your "objection" is worthless... yet posted it anyway. Why?

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

No, it isn't. First, a child has diminished capacity for moral action and therefore a diminished responsibility for his actions. You would not be justified in shooting a child or a person with Down syndrome even if they tried to burn down your property--but this is precisely because we assume they do not have the capacity to fully realize what they are doing, or to form a criminal intent to do so in the first place. A child who happened to burn down a house is morally the same as someone who burned down a house completely by accident, since there is no intention to do so in both cases. We do not have the right to shoot someone who accidentally sets fire to our house.

May I remind you, many of those burnt cars in Paris have been destroyed by children. But if it pleases you, I'll change it. What if it were an adult stealing a candy bar, as unlikely as it may sound, would you be justified in killing him?

Second, there are obviously many other ways to stop a child from stealing--like asking him to give it back. To go back to the Down synrome example, a person with Down syndrome is likely to obey a caretaker or any authority figure far more willingly than a thug; shouting at them, or the equivalent, would surely stop them from burning your house. So you are not justified in stopping it by shooting when shouting or restraining would do.

The child may run off with your property. The children in the streets of Paris have been burning cars precisely in order to attract the authorities, whom they wish to fight, not obey.

Third, the law is not concerned with trivialities: a candy bar is probably not a reason to shoot someone dead, but a threat to torch your property is.

But a candy bar is property. Are you claiming that the value of a candy bar is insufficient to warrant killing? This is in direct contradiction to your previous claim, "The reason this is not disproportionate force is that it is proportionate to what it would take to stop this person from destroying your property, not to the value of the property."

What is annoying about this, Nick, is that you surely realize all this, and that your "objection" is worthless... yet posted it anyway. Why?

Earlier on, you assigned me (or another unidentified presumed Frenchman) an inexistant quote. Now it is no longer for you to invent my words, you have to invent my thoughts.

 

[Freakshow]

No, reductio ad absurdum.You claim the value is of no consequence. Therefore I give an example where the value is negligible.

*I* never claimed that. Someone else did.

I'll try to jump in later, but have to get ready to go to work now.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

*I* never claimed that. Someone else did.

I'll try to jump in later, but have to get ready to go to work now.

You are correct. My apologies. It was Skeptic's claim.