[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Any so-called "expert" who states that growing up in poverty results in someone eventually reacting in this way should be discounted not for her or his theories, but for the unscientific nature of the conclusion. After all, a propensity to riot is not something with which a person is born. Socio-environmental conditions are what lead people to such action, right or wrong, and the idea that "all those" who grow up in poverty will eventually engage in such action is preposterous.

That was what I was saying in my first post.

Originally Posted by smc

The social contract is not, as you write, "non-existent." Again, irrespective of how one analyzes the reason for the riots, the existence of the social contract must be recognized as a given. In Britain, a social safety net has existed. As it is dismantled, the dynamic in society changes. Unless society as a whole renegotiates the contract or agrees to its dissolution, it is being "broken."

In the United States, the safety net components cynically dubbed "entitlements" by politicians who wish to eliminate them are part of a social contract.

I still say the social contract is non-existent. Every program run by any government is paid for through taxes. Governments do not create money they only redistribute what is taken in taxes. The government takes in money (from me) and later gives it back. The government did not create any program out of benevolence. Programs were created by governments in the hopes that they will be retain power because it looks like they are doing something for nothing. Therefore there is no social contract.