Thoughts on Riots and Subsidies and Social Disorder, Oh My

This makes an interesting read.  Bonus: this zinger of a beatdown on ... Well, read for yourself:

In the U.S., professional protesters, self-styled anarchists and pampered college students who spend too much time reading Foucault and Derrida run wild through the streets, vandalize private property, and set dumpsters on fire.  

Ha!  (It was not a week ago that another rebel nerd and I had hilarious fun hating on Derrida.  But that's another story.)  For a slightly more thought-provoking quote of the day, though, try this observation about all too many nations:

becoming tripartite states in which one-third of all taxpayers are employed by government at some level, one-third of the people are crucially dependent in some way on government support (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, and a gazillion other untrackable support programs), and one-third produces the income (the tax base) paid out in supports for the first two-thirds.

The structure is untenable.  Just look at Greece and France to see what happens when you make promises you can't keep -- or when the government teat runs dry.  Thatcher was right after all: eventually you DO run out of other people's money.  And then what?  It's simply not good for massive segments of a population to be addicted or dependent on the government.  It just isn't.  It's even worse when the population's become demoralized and infantilized -- social engineering backfiring in spectacular fashion.  Cue the tire-burning, rock-throwing, window-smashing temper tantrums across the Atlantic.  Good grief.  Don't make me get on my soapbox about how being addicted to government goodies in the end makes folks selfish and unreasonable.  I want my goodies!  I don't care about reality!  You promised!  (It reminds me of recent protests over education cuts in California.  "Give us our money!"  "There ISN'T ANY."  "Give us our money!"  "There ISN'T ANY."  "Give us..."  ad nauseam.)