Here’s the reality. Someone did something bad or wrong, you’re upset (maybe irate). That is understandable.
Let’s look at how one responds though. Allow me to present a simple scenario. Your daughter fails a critical test, how do you respond? Do you deal with your daughter, or do you spank and ground some kid you see at random on the street? Am I wrong in assuming the answer to this question seems obvious?
Many years ago, it was fairly common for young royals to have “whipping boys.” These were people who were punished because it was assumed the young prince or other peer should not be. Even this makes more sense than the presented scenario, and that’s saying something, since it really makes no sense at all. But you see, at least the “whipping boy” knew he “had it coming,” and in many instances was in some wise “paid for the privilege.”
Like the “whipping boy” scenario, and the breaking of store windows and looting of said stores, senseless acts of violence, theft and destruction help nobody. In the best case, they drive up prices, as those against whom that violence, theft and destruction is perpetrated have to pay for the results of the damage.
Even in cases where the “culprits” are caught, you can pretty much rest assured they will likely never pay a dime to those to whom they did damage or harm. And whether you think so or not, very few business make enough money to “eat” such a loss (and even if one does, such acts often make it so the costs in question keep them from achieving other ends, such as expanding their businesses and potentially helping yet others in the process).
In case you’re thinking, “They probably aren’t even the ones that will fix the window,” keep the following in mind. Even if they’re leasing the facility out of which their business operates, one of the below listed is probably true:
- They will very likely at least have to pay for “signage,” since that was likely an expense they incurred when they started (or as an “add on expense to”) their business. They may have to pay for windows and other damage regardless that they are leasing.
- Though the building owner probably has certain kinds of insurance, they may or may not have insurance against intentional damage and destruction.
- Even if the owner does have such insurance, you can pretty much be sure:
- Not everything will be paid for by the insurance. Some items even for the lessor and pretty much everything done by the lessee will be “over and above” what the insurance covers.
- Insurance almost always assumes the “best case scenario.” They have to do this, because if they didn’t, premiums would be prohibitively high. The result? It is often the case that claims drive up cost of the insurance in the future. So adding insult to injury, the insured person or company faithfully pays premiums, then makes a claim and as a result of the claim, their insurance premium increases, increasing the “cost of doing business.” Again, very few can “eat” that cost increase, so the tendency is to “pass it on.”
Worst case? Who even knows for sure? The business can’t afford to keep its doors open, workers are forced to look for other jobs, owners fall back into less prosperous positions where they can no longer offer others jobs. People are unable to afford to live, who knows what else?
Now in case all of this is not bad enough (and it is), remember too, that people caught in the act of looting or vandalizing—again, someone who likely had nothing to do with the thing against which they’re protesting—will also likely suffer. The worse the acts, the greater the punishment if convicted of wrongdoing.
Imagine, for example, the potentially permanent mark on your record, indicating felonious activity in your past. I can promise such a thing will not make you in any sense, a “more productive member of society.” This includes, your actually being able to be seen as a person righteously attempting to right past wrongs with your words and actions.
Whether you like it, accept it, or don’t, people will use the past to determine the future. This includes in how they look at others. So a person who sees a former felon attempting to “tell them how things ought to be or work,” is less likely to place the weight on that person’s words that they might on a person against whom no such claim can be made.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes it’s necessary to have such marks against you, and sometimes they will even “add to your credence.” But that’s not true as often as folks would have others believe.
You may not believe this, but many of us “out there,” entirely understand the idea that there are injustices in the World, and that they need to be dealt with. The question though is not if such injustices exist, but what should be done to correct them.
The one thing I can tell you with relative certainty, is that most folks will not agree with doing various kinds of harm to uninvolved individuals. This is—by the way—particularly true if those against whom you do harm are relatively unknown to you. And that’s regardless your thinking that they are evil for where they live, or the supposed color of their skin (and let’s be clear here, black and white are folly, we’re most all of us one shade of brown or another).
One more point. You may or may not be aware that, for the most part, wrong headed or hearted activities are not a matter of some huge majority out there in collusion or agreement. Rather, they are typically the acts (like the violence and destruction that often follows them), of a scant few. They may think they’re “speaking for the majority,” but I can all but promise you that, in general, they are mistaken.
Well, I seem to have more or less “stayed inside” my word limit. If you’re interested in what started me down this path, see the link to the article listed below.
As usual, have a wonderful day and thanks for reading.