Good morning!
Pretty much... Remember, the same thing happened during Katrina. In America, it seems blacks always want to burn their shit down. Ever since the watts riots of the 60s, this Is how they react when they feel repressed.
It's also what white people do, throughout history, long before the 1960's. Look up the history of my name,
Wat Tyler. Rioting itself is not a racial issue and the exclusive past time of the black community. It's a social one- it's generally the poorest with the least to loose who riot. But not exclusively- we had violent protest and clashes with police from the upper classes as well as the normal rural population in the UK when the government banned hunting for foxes with a pack of dogs in 2004. Not quite a riot, but seeing their reaction I wonder how much further they would have needed to be pushed before they did just become hell bent on destruction of the system they felt was shafting them. Remember this even included posh people from families with old money.
However the reason for the 1990's riot was undeniably largely racial.
Unfortunately, they do themselves more harm than good. Just because a demographic of people do not agree on something, doesn't give them the right to riot and attack their own community members and businesses. It's a flawed logic In their mind that by doing so, everything will be better later. What they accomplished is no trust within their own community and only 28% of the businesses they destroyed, ever returned.
I agree they have no right to do this. But it doesn't mean it is without reason. It's fucked up, for sure, but they are certainly not the only parties involved. You've got to look at the whole situation. And try to find some logic- because as you point out it's their own community members and interests that are hurt.
It's a bit like watching someone self harming, you know- where they cut their arm/leg skin with a knife. Well that's very flawed logic too. I think everyone with a bit of sense realises that attacking them for their lack of logic in cutting themselves is not going to be the thing that solves such a complicated issue. There are fundamental issues underlying this symptom. Likewise it's a profoundly sick and destructive society, but I think it can be better if we look at understanding the causes rather than the symptoms.
Martial law protects the people against themselves
Think that when you're locked in your FEMA camp.
Rights come from the creator....
Eh? Yeah, legal rights maybe, but not ethical or moral rights. A starving (I could extend the analogy to sick as well, but it's not as fundamental an example) man has the right to take (or from your viewpoint steal) food to eat (especially when it's available in excess), and I will not condemn him for it (legally maybe, as we have to maintain a system, but I can not ethically condemn him). It's a natural right and any animal will do the same. As a compassionate/cooperative human beings if he can't do so then that right is extended to others to provide on his behalf. If you don't recognise his right to eat, and instead insist that your perceived right to accumulate excess trumps that right, then there will be no law and order. I will exercise my right to steal it and do what I must.
And where did we get in to the detail what kind of democracy I want? Since you suggest it I'll say that whilst fundamentally a system of parliamentary democracy is the most practical and effective, I do quite like the Swiss model which demands more direct democracy, though in practise it's a bit clunky and local government issues can weight them down a bit. I certainly do think that more key important decisions should be taken by referendum.
I doubt that you'd still see cannabis illegal in the USA under increased direct democracy.
Under "tyranny of the masses" you can protect the rights of more minorities than you will through the tyranny of one particular minority.
That's why we live in a republic, it protects the rights of the minority.
But I thought there were no rights that could be taken away
you mean privileges
If living in a democracy was all good like people in England claim, Wales wouldn't be it's own country now would it? Although its a part of England under democracy, welsh Iive their own life the way they want. Why do you think the queen hated princess Diana so much?
The united states is a represented republic.... A sole republic is nothing more than dictatorship with no voting Or freedom... A sole democracy sucks... You are voting on everything.. Where as in a democratic republic like the USA, we vote to elect someone to do it for us. We split into two parties in the united states... Democrats and republicans... We simply have a designated person to do the job for us.
Hell the queen doesn't even have power anymore.. Why are they still a democracy?
I'm a little confused by that to be honest. The UK works under a system of parliamentary democracy too- we're not big into direct democratic participation and rarely have referendum. I don't think it's as different as you're imagining? And in some ways it's even more direct in America- don't you get to elect your Prosecutors and Police Chiefs? We don't (though I'm very, very glad for that fact). The UK is not a direct democracy. I'm not aware of anywhere that is.
The queen is only the head of state on paper- she could never exercise her full power for with holding Royal Assent nowadays (although I think that if this were 'on paper' in the USA the paranioa would be manic and the tea party would probably be advocating adhering to it- I think we're maybe more used to having ancient rubbish on the statue books as long as it doesn't interfere with modern progress- when it does we change it, but there's so much that if its not broken...)
Wales has always been it's own country, as have England and Scotland since long before the act of union. These together with Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain. England is just the most populous of these four countries and in American has become synonymous with the UK, to the chagrin of the other UK nationalities. What has happened in recent years is some devolution of certain administrative powers to these composite nations. Effectively regionalisation. In some ways I guess you could draw some loose parallels between state and federal government in the USA. But it's not the break away in Wales I think you might perceive it as- the Welsh people chose not to take as many powers for the Welsh Assembly as the Scots did, and they're not really into the idea of breaking from the UK at all- just a bit more local influence on local decisions. The Scottish Government however wants complete separation from the UK as it's own sovereign state, and a referendum is due in 2014.
It's actually a slightly skewed system as there's no separate English administration- England is done at the UK level, which mean that you have Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish elected representatives voting on solely English issues amongst UK ones, yet English members can't participate in devolved administration decision making. I don't think in practise it's caused any issue yet though.
Finally, the queen certainly did not hate princess Diana due to any Welsh connection. Firstly Diana was only the princess of Wales in name, she's actually from a very, very English aristocratic dynasty (
the Spencers). Secondly, whilst Diana might have been the Princess of Wales, the Queen herself is the Queen of Wales. In a sense even more Welsh than Diana was.
your point didn't stick) Wat do you know what a legal trust is? Well the constitution is a trust document to bestow Liberty upon us, the beneficiary of the trust, from the trustee, the government. Thats why elected officials take the oath of office "to support and defend the constitution" and it is the governments job to preserve my liberty if someone is infringing on it, in all the various forms this might take. Like maintaining law and order and property rights for instance.