Just Occasional Riots Or ‘Spring Revolutions’ Reaching Western Countries ?

What's also exciting is that the Spring Revolutions have spread south of the Sahara. Consider the recent unrest in Malawi. I actually think Africans and Europeans can make more productive use of revolution that Arabs, since the latter are invariably shackled to Islam.

I am sure the well dressed "youth" who have organized the looting of posh stores with their smart phones are really interested in social justice. I am sure the beating of working folk and the destruction of their small businesses are all about sending a message to the political elites. If you can't tell I am being sarcastic.

What is needed is a return to individual liberty and its corresponding responsibility. It is the citizens obligation to maintain order, but when the state takes that responsibility away, then this is the result. There cannot be well ordered community when it is directed from above. Communities are organic and must have a sense of itself from the bottom up. No accountability means no care of consequences.

Anarchy is no friend of freedom, it is only the friend of the criminal class. (Of course this includes the politician criminals) interesting days.

Lewis, not all revolutions start with conscious aims or explicit political ideals. There are a lot of unconscious and emotional components in them.

Secondly, what is poverty and deprivation depends of social context. In developed countries, having a mobile or cellular phone is not longer a symbol of wealth since long ago. Almost everybody has it.
Therefore, this does not mean that a mobile phone owner can have I dignifying and easy living.

Thirdly, -social justice- is way more important than just "order". Nazism, Stalinism and theocracies were/are based on a lot of order, yet I am disgusted to all of them.

Fourthly, individual responsibility is not separated from social responsibility. They are interconnected and strongly influence each other.

Howard, I am willing to bet my next paycheck that you will be begging for order over social justice if you were getting the shat kicked out of you because you happened to be the wrong skin color or because you had a pair of pants some thug wanted. My point is that order is not more important than social justice, but when you are getting robbed or burned out your priorities change.

I strongly disagree with you assertion that, "poverty and deprivation depends of social context. In developed countries, having a mobile or cellular phone is not longer a symbol of wealth since long ago. Almost everybody has it.

Therefore, this does not mean that a mobile phone owner can have I dignifying and easy living."

In the Western World there are an extreme few that are not having "easy living". Let's have a look at the ownership of luxury items in Great Britain, Canada and the USA. In these countries over 95% of the "poor" have things like refrigerators, phones and tv's. A roof over their head and sufficient food are given for over 99%! There are no Africa poor in these countries. There are degrees of luxury, but little real grinding poverty. The looters in London are not going to the grocer wanting essentials, they are going to the Sony warehouse looking for PS3's.

Social justice in the West, does not now mean freedom from slavery, or the right to vote. it means the right to another persons hard earned wealth in order to buy the latest video game system. It is entitlement plain and simple, and if the mobs of the welfare state do not get what they want, then they will take it by force.

This kind of revolution has beginnings that are rooted in the political farce of entitlement bestowed by politicians seeking power and special interests seeking influence. Behold the wonder of the Welfare State! I bet the Brit shop keeper wished they could still own guns.

Here is the hypocrisy:

Loot billions and you'll get a bailout from the government. Loot a TV set and you will be called a criminal thug and you will probably get five years behind bars.

Social injustice starts right here with this type of mind-boggling discrepancy of moral judgment.