Destroying small businesses, burning cars and shooting at firefighters is a positive for the economy, says liberal website Gawker.
In an article entitled “Actually, Riots are Good: The Economic Case for Riots in Ferguson,” Salon writer and Gawker contributor Matt Bruenig makes the case that destroying the livelihood of those in your community actually produces benefits because it stops police from misbehaving.
“Rioting that occurs in response to gross police misconduct and criminal system abuses imposes costs on doing those things,” Bruenig states. “It signals to police authorities that they risk this sort of destructive mayhem if they continue on like this.”
Bruenig goes further by arguing that property linked to the criminal justice system would be even more beneficial to destroy, as government officials would be forced to cover the costs.
“To be sure, burning down AutoZones is not an optimal way to impose costs on state authorities. It would be, as some interviewed Ferguson residents noted, far more effective to target police equipment or other property nearer to criminal justice authorities,” Bruenig suggested. “Since state authorities are always and everywhere most concerned about capital and business interests, threatening to impose costs on them via rioting should have a similar impact on police incentives.”
Bruenig completely fails to realize or mention that the costs will be covered by struggling Ferguson residents through increased taxation and ticketing, not by police or city officials.
The author also attempts to analyze how the economic cost of white police officers killing black suspects could be reduced through rioting. Of course, Bruenig makes no mention of the young black male who was shot and set on fire by rioters Tuesday night.
Incredibly, Bruenig ends his piece by pushing for an increase in rioting, calling the destruction in Ferguson “suboptimal.”
“Do the potential benefits of Ferguson rioting as a police sanctioning tool outweigh its immediate wealth destruction?” I suspect it does and, in fact, that the current rioting level is likely economically suboptimal,” Bruenig states.
Bruenig’s article perfectly exemplifies the leftist mindset of “the greater good,” a belief that justifies immoral and harmful acts as “necessary” so long as the “collective” progresses.
Rejecting immoral government actions without the use of offensive violence, as seen with civil rights champion Rosa Parks, is often the most effective way to combat injustices – not burning down neighborhoods.
Despite claiming to be a champion of women’s rights, Bruenig’s argument completely justifies the destruction of several black, female-owned businesses in Ferguson that may never recover.
Juanita’s Fashion R Boutique, the largest black-owned boutique in St. Louis, is now nothing more than a pile of rubble. Natalie DuBos, who worked for years to create her cupcake business, is now struggling to rebuild.
Offensive violence, especially against one’s own community, only serves to embolden the police state and reduce the effectiveness of legitimate protesters, regardless of a person’s views on Michael Brown.