That's how it works. Until there's so much rioting the police can't deal with it. What should happen then? Cutting communications seems like a pretty good idea.
The people are concerned about the cost of oil I mean it’s the bombs that hit Iran that caused this not the French government.
Am I missing something? What drives people to burn shops down and assault people the next steps is assault rifles, so they should be happy without social media.
Simple:it's "If society doesn't work for me, then it's better that it works for no one"
I mean yes, but then france is on the 5th republic now, so unlike the USA where they just sit and take it, they riot until something happens.
Don't boast too much about the US lmao
Epstein died in 2019. Biden was in office from 2021 to 2025, no files were released.
Trump took office in January of 2025, since then some ( but not all? ) files have been released.
Why fault Trump but not Biden? Didn’t Trump actually do better?
What about the blatant nepotism in the administration? Kushner &co?
Daily reminder that Trump shilled goya fucking beans from the oval office lmao
I mean yes, but that's exactly down to country "personality" and conventions which I was hinting at. France values the right to protest almost above the right to shrug. However its not like the french police are going to be nice to you because you're protesting, french police are _bastards_.
If you wander around with a gun in france, and you're not hunting, the police _will_ shoot you, and more importantly, in the spirit of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, they'll shoot you even if you're white.
This _is_ the part of the political process.
For example in the USA jan6th was part of the democratic process there. Not a good part, but its still part of it.
And yet people went out there with no idea instead of, you know, volunteering and helping with their local election office.
You and I might not _like_ jan the 6th, but it was part of the process, it started out as a rally for their candidate, and then dissolved into a riot.
The consequences for the rioters, and the pardoning of them subsequently signalled where the country was going. (Biden trying very hard to not ever be seen as partisan, at the expense of justice, and Trump asserting that loyalty to him is the only currency that matters.)
Not all rallies are for the good of the country, or move the country forward. But they are part of the process, legitimate or not.
The civil rights protest were widely seen as illegitimate, and they were brutally put down. It was only through persistence and a wide base of political action from peaceful marches right up to armed resistance, did laws change.
This governmental tactic of using "agents provocateurs" against protests had been invented by the French themselves, a very long time ago, but now it is universally used by all governments.
Pensions cost 400+ billions a year, it's not the couple of millions of euros of damage that will change anything.
How much damage happened during the 1789 revolution? What about he US civil war?
If that's how you read the situation you're a complete tool
the "russian bot" thing made sense. this is just conspiritardation.
There’s a difficult balance to strike, and leadership seems incapable of it lately, hence the uprisings of the people without much property they can call their own.
Example: many believe the rich ought to be taxed more; but the problem is the Laffer curve: when they're taxed too much, they work less or leave France. So tax receipts go down (not up). End result: more "fairness" on paper but the people who actually depend on government funding have less of it (e.g. for education).
So the change harms the very people who are protesting for the change.
Has this literally ever happened, like anywhere? Yeah, the Laffer curve is a very real concern and a by-product of Rolle's theorem, but we don't even know where the supposed inflection point is, much less whether any given tax reform that would cause wealthy people to pay more would go over it.
> So the change harms the very people who are protesting for the change.
Human psychology is weird in that they might even be okay with this as long as the perceived fairness increases. But the only way to find out would be to do an experiment. That might also help us find the inflection point in the Laffer curve.
Without a global wealth tax (which seems impossible to coordinate) then I don’t see a good solution if the goal is to extract excess wealth from UHNW individuals. This is why a Georgist land value tax scheme is probably better; it levels out real estate speculation, which is a favorite parking lot for excess wealth and which has terrible side effects. Over time this will level out wealth inequality slightly, while forcing unproductive (rent seeking) wealth into the market.
I’m in favor of a single tax (just LVT), which economists say is possible, but if you must then you could also tax stock/bond profits (trading, dividends, coupons) at a higher rate. This may be a bad idea though if it pushes investors over to foreign markets.
The Laffer curve exists. It's heavily skewed to the right. Studies find the peak is probably about 80% tax rate, which we don't have to worry about accidentally exceeding.
The Laffer curve also only makes sense in the context of a government's primary purpose being to maximise its own revenues. This is clearly not how we want governments to work. If an increased tax on cigarettes causes less total cigarette tax revenue that would be widely considered a good thing.
Edit: instead of having my comments instantly shadowbanned by a coin clip, I've now been told that I'm posting too fast. That means a moderator is actively looking at my account and changing which punishment I'm subject to, but I've never received any feedback explaining why I am to be punished.
Hundreds of videos of riot police beating kids and women, kids lost eyes, hands, feet, etc.
Zero video of the police intervening during the looting, not a single police officer in any of the looted streets