I should add that I have seen people openly endorsing violence and sympathizing with rioters on facebook. They just don't get censored because they are on the left it would seem.

To violently riot in a free, democratic country is beyond pathetic.

"An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself." - Epictetus, Enchiridion

I am inclined to agree. Those who support the violence seem to not even have any real policy positions either. It's just burn it all down as far as I can tell. If they want change they should vote in people who will make change instead of making the rest of the left look bad.

I probably shouldn't be serial commenting on my own thread but this is a new cohesive thought: one might argue that racist policies are so entrenched in our government that we need to "start fresh" so to speak. The democratic system, on every level, is not serving the people. I don't know what we could put in its place but this an argument I (think?) I've heard.

I voted "no", but, though I do more or less adhere to a kind of strict nonviolence, think that there could be particular cases where violence can be justified, though that is kind of highly qualified. Rioting isn't necessarily violence, though. There are forms of direct action that do constitute violent coercion, but a lot of them don't necessarily. There's a difference between smashing a window, the Earth Liberation Front sort of harassing people from the companies whom they waged nonviolent direct actions upon, the Weather Underground bombings and arsons beginning in 1969, a bank robbery, and a political assassination. On some level, all such acts are coercive, but, an act is only violently coercive in so far that it forces a person to do something because of a threat.

The US is not a free, democratic country.

Violent protests are a combination of political manipulation and a tiny minority of low intelligence rabble. They expose the mindset of those encouraging political violence and looting. As if the violence and looting will make people think oh wow,they look like decent folks let's join them!
And these protests in the US wont achieve anything except a mistrust of the BLM antifa and any other leftist backed propagandists.
The burn it all down mentality is a cover for dumbwits which the politicians of both right and left use to their advantage.
Its particularly funny when a huge amount of black folks condemn BLM and violence yet white "intellectuals" ignore this or worse...

I remember hearing about the study that showed that the US is an oligarchy. Despite this, I think we can still salvage our country however through the existing, but nearly broken, democratic mechanisms in place. Thanks for commenting btw.

The democratic system, on every level, is not serving the people. — Aleph Numbers

The US is not a free, democratic country. — StreetlightX

Part of living in a democracy is that your team doesn't always win. If one unpopolar president is all it takes for citizens to go into meltdown then I guess the veil of civilization was truly thin indeed.

Alas, every country ends up with the government it deserves.

Lol, you think this about Trump? The US has been in terminal decline since the late 70s at the latest.

I remember hearing about the study that showed that the US is an oligarchy. — Aleph Numbers

More a plutocracy, I think.

So there was a time when the US was a "democracy"
and wasnt a plutocracy?!
Every govt in history has been and is now a plutocracy.
Just look at the worldwide governmrntal response to the so called covid,purely a matter of the mega rich trying to line their pockets. But they overreached themselves and now all these ministers and businesses are scrambling and throwing handouts so as not to lose public support.
Plutocrats need the masses to create their wealth. So the masses must be kept reasonably comfortable in order to work. The US is based on economics not freedom. Always has been.

So there was a time when the US was a "democracy"
and wasnt a plutocracy?! — Asif

I never said it was a democracy. It never could reasonably be deemed one in any case, as its Founders were careful to assure it would not be a democracy. As for the claim that every government in history has been a plutocracy, accepting it of course saves us the trouble of distinguishing one from another, and so it has the charming qualities of simplicity and ease.

@Ciceronianus the White my bad. My comment wasnt that you had said it was a democracy I was addressing another post talking about democracy and agreeing with you that the US is a plutocracy.
Every govt has been a plutocracy simply because only the mega rich can govern. Yes there are different types of plutocracy but only in size and composition not the actual ideology of wealth being the requirement for govt.

According to a study I found there are some full democracies: https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index For instance, many of the European democracies qualify and top the rankings. Somewhat ironically they are social democracies. The US is considered a flawed democracy, probably because of corporations meddling with our elections and such. But maybe I'm wrong about the democratic mechanisms being almost broken. More research is needed.

Check out this study: https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index Maybe the US government isn't as corrupt and backwards as it seems. That being said, "flawed" is still pretty bad.

nonviolent protest appears to be more effective than violent protests. — Aleph Numbers

A researcher lost his job for reporting a study that said exactly that.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/dem-data-firm-backed-by-former-google-ceo-dismissed-employee-for-linking-violent-protests-and-voter-turnout/

Yeah I know and it is messed up. I don't give a crap if people hate me for saying something, but I'm just a little guy with nothing to lose. Free speech is essential. Many of those who are sympathetic to rioters or support violence now will be cracked down on eventually. It's bound to happen; once you sign away free speech as a principle you open the door to the establishment dominating the discourse. I saw someone get fact checked on facebook because they shared this meme: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-buses-photo/ And while fact checking isn't quite suppression, I don't think people's posts should be fact checked. The fact checking wasn't by facebook, but facebook gets to decide which posts get fact checked it seems, and they appear to be fact checking mostly conservatives. Idiots actually. Only an idiot would believe some of the crap that gets spread around.

I don’t think violence is justified, nor can I consider it a form of protest. However I think leaving the country is entirely justified. If the social contract is broken it makes no sense to stay in it and break it some more.

Good point. But what about those who can't leave and feel like the government has been failing them? Non-violent protest? And if someone who voted in favor of violent protest being justified could give me some hard policy positions that they would like to be implemented that would be great.

@Aleph Numbers I consider ALL governments plutocracies. Just some have different social practices and policies. How would you define democracy?

Yeah that's great and all but that's just how you feel it seems. Can you cite research or a study that says that all governments are plutocracies? What about Kibbutz's in Israel? Are they plutocracies? What about the Greeks? Did they not have a democracy? I define a democracy as "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives". Most of the highest rated democracies are social democracies, but democracies nonetheless.

@Aleph Numbers A system of govt by the whole population through elected representatives. Sounds good in theory. But you typically have only two candidates and you dont get to vote on policy law or economics. 1933 Germany was a democracy no? I live in the UK,that's a parliamentary democracy. I have no say or input into govt policy law or economics. I dont trust the politicians of either side,the lying and crony capitalism is rampant,as is the elitism and corruption
Israel is run by wealthy oligarchs a kibbutz is not a govt.
The greeks of course were run by the mega rich.
So called research and citations does not equal the lived experience and obvious fact that the mega rich are the only ones with the resources to govern. And is research really going to be widely disseminated that undermines the whole premise of govt and calls out politicians for the incorrigible thieves that they are.
Real politik is machiavelli and oligarchy ,not fluffy academia or lightweight university discussion.

I would sooner put my lot in with academia and research than with the common person. After all, Trump got elected. That says a lot. That being said, the experiences of those who feel the disenfranchisement you seem to be embodying is still important - especially when the feeling is shared by many. Are you being genuine? I seriously can't tell.

@Aleph Numbers Of course I'm serious. I've seen the UK democracy at close quarters. A lot of folks dont have much faith in politics. They dont even vote a lot of times.
Myself as a thinking person I've seen that politics is incorrigible and no amount of ideology or research is going to disprove what I've seen with my own eyes and intellect.

I remember hearing about the study that showed that the US is an oligarchy. — Aleph Numbers

More a plutocracy, I think. — Ciceronianus the White

Very much a KAKISTOCRACY right now. Government by the worst--i.e., Donald Trump (with other kakistocrats waiting in the wings)

Oh, look! 'mercans who still think they live in a democracy! How cute!

I voted "no" because in most cases violent protest is counterproductive. There are cases in extremis where violence could certainly be justified, such as the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. It failed (Hitler survived the bomb), and the group involved was executed. A revolution (1917, Russia) may well involve violent protest, but if successful, the heroes and villains change places.

people of color, appear to feel a sense of disenfranchisement, that the US government has failed them on myriad levels (systemic racism, lack of social mobility, no nationalized health care, insane income inequality, the excesses of capitalism, etc.) — Aleph Numbers

The title of the thread, Disenfranchisement and the Social Contract, got lost very quickly.

The US Government and Capitalism didn't fail blacks -- they intended that blacks (and other undesirable minorities) should get the short end of the stick, and they have.

Some will raise objections that there is no such thing as a social contract to start with. I think there is a social contract, embodied in custom and law. Just because it exists, a social contract doesn't have to benefit everyone. For instance...

Our social contract has proscribed whites and blacks from occupying housing in close proximity to each other. Guilt-burdened liberal types may strive for housing integration, but most white folks are reasonably content with the arrangement. The social contract works for them, pretty much.

In practice, our social contract called for removal of Native Americans from the land which we wanted to occupy. We succeeded, and most people (other than Native Americans) find little reason to think they should give the land back. The social contract is working as intended.

The founders of America, the first drafters of our social contract, were not very fond of poor people--whether they were white or not. They didn't like poor people in England either, and even though they allowed poor people to migrate to the colonies (cheap labor), they still didn't like them. They considered our poor forebears "white trash" and have generally arranged things so that poor white trash (PWT) never were in a position to take over.

As it happens, the rich white trash (RWT) were very successful in their efforts. Even poor white trash find it difficult to imagine overthrowing their rich white betters, even though they--PWT--theoretically could.

Keeping blacks poorer than whites (for the most part) turns out to be a considerable comfort to PWT, and who cares what poor blacks think, anyway.

Our social contract has a sharp, jagged edge. The Golden Rule it is most decidedly not.

I remember hearing about the study that showed that the US is an oligarchy. Despite this, I think we can still salvage our country however through the existing, but nearly broken, democratic mechanisms in place. — Aleph Numbers

The problem for the US is that it starts with so many embedded geopolitical advantages that it is almost impossible to sink. It thus lacks the incentives to get its act together.

It has secure borders, the world's best food basket, a balanced demography, abundant energy and other resources, control of the world economy with the dollar as the reserve currency.

So it can run itself badly and still get by in a way most other nations can't.

What is a person to do when the social contract has been broken? Are they justified in tearing down the system? And if they are, are they justified in doing it violently? — Aleph Numbers

The US is insulated against external shocks to its system by all its embedded advantages. So reform would have to come from within.

As you rightly say, the question is why civil disobedience might indeed work better than violent overthrow. Is Chenoweth correct?

It seems commonsensical that tearing things down is easy. Building things up is the hard part.

So forming a steadfast block of citizens with a common clear objective is what has impact in human affairs - if there is any kind of democratic system in place. An angry mob with no such cohesion can be as violent as it likes to little effect. That just justifies an authoritarian crack down.

The problem for the US circles back to the fact that its own citizens know that irresponsibility has low immediate risk because the US system sits on so much geopolitical advantage. They don't need to be disciplined in their complaints in a way that forges that resolute state of civil disobedience.

So change could come if the US were at a tipping point where maybe even a small amount of resolute citizen action might be enough to trigger a shift in desired directions. But it hardly feels like the US is anywhere near that tipping point internally.

It's geopolitical advantages are a huge buffer against a system reform that would confront "the new truths" we might like it to see.

Is violent protest justified? — Aleph Numbers

Ill-considered question. Some, certainly. Some, certainly not.