Riots: how public money became big business and bred a culture of dependency

Some argue that the current riots are not a spontaneous social explosion, but the combination of a narrative that promises rights without effort and a state turned into a source of money and dependency. The proposed solution involves drastically shrinking the public sector and restoring individual responsibility.

There is a reading of the riots recurring across Europe that refuses to settle for the explanation of a spontaneous social outburst. Against the image of people taking to the streets because they cannot make ends meet, some maintain that the phenomenon responds to something different: the existence of social media and of a narrative, coming mainly from the left, that has convinced a large part of society, and young people in particular, that one has rights simply by being born. Not only the right to walk freely down the street, to work at whatever one chooses or to equality before the law. Also the right for everything to be easy and free, and for the state to be there to provide it.

The comparison with other eras, such as the conflicts at the start of the Industrial Revolution, does not hold, according to this thesis: the conflicts of the past have nothing to do with today's. The novelty is the narrative and the network that amplifies it. And on that basis an explanation of the disorder is built that mixes economics, political culture and what is described as a crisis of maturity.

## The state as a source of income and dependency

The central piece of the argument is that a large part of the population lives subsidiarily off the state. It mentions pensioners, public employees —of whom civil servants are only a part—, the hundreds of public companies and organizations of various kinds, such as associations, unions and NGOs. To these are added those who, not yet depending on the state, are waiting their turn, because they aspire to turn that dependency into a way of life.

The conclusion drawn is that people have been taught that living off the state is not just a possibility but a right. And from there, according to this reading, come thousands of young people who, upon realizing that their lives do not reach the promised level, react in different ways: some camping out at Madrid's Puerta del Sol, others smashing shop windows and others disrupting election events of parties that put work at the center rather than dependence on the state.

The diagnosis is completed with an accusation against the party system. It is argued that parties such as **PSOE** and **PP**, along with peripheral and nationalist parties, have turned the state into a big business of public money. The consequence would be twofold: on the one hand, a structure that distributes other people's money; on the other, a youth that has been made to believe reality can be shaped at will. The example given is of someone who believes they can squat in a house or collect a salary without working, and who votes for **PSOE** or **Sumar** convinced that this is possible. Those who defend this thesis call it nonsense, but claim there are many young people convinced that such a thing is possible.

## The comparison with the French Revolution and the ruling class

The text draws a historical parallel to describe the attitude of today's leaders. It evokes the period before the French Revolution, when people were starving in the streets and the bourgeoisie, the business owners of the day, was fed up with paying taxes, while King **Louis XVI**, his vvife and their entire cohort enjoyed endless parties at the palace of **Versailles**. There, it is said, they indulged in every kind of excess, from urinating on the curtains to affairs with courtesans around the palace, all accompanied by enormous banquets where so much food piled up that much of it ended in the trash.

The image that emerges is of a ruling class detached from the reality of its people, convinced it can keep enjoying its privileges while everyone else bears the consequences of its decisions. That same image is applied to certain politicians today. The specific example cited is French President **Emmanuel Macron**, who while Paris burned had gone off with his vvife to enjoy a **Céline Dion** concert. The attitude is summed up as what is described as the politics of laissez-faire.

## From aspirin to shrinking the state

For the riots, the text distinguishes between the immediate remedy and the underlying solution. Arresting all those responsible and imposing five-figure fines or prison sentences would be, in its words, an aspirin to dull the pain. The real solution, according to this thesis, is to kill the dog to end the rabies: the rabies would be the big business of public money and the dog, the state.

The concrete proposal is to shrink the state by **90%**, eliminate all subsidies and overhaul the civil service from top to bottom. The argument is that the state has become the country's largest company and employment agency, and that taxpayers' money is used to maintain a colossal administrative structure, feed patronage networks and perpetuate the economic dependency of millions of people. It adds that politicians handle other people's money as if it belonged to them, distributing it at will and using it to buy loyalties, prop up friendly organizations and secure an electorate dependent on their decisions.

The alternative proposed is to delegate many of the administration's current tasks to private companies. If a company fails, goes on strike or does not deliver, it is fired and another is hired. Just that simple, it says. Instead of indefinitely tolerating the inefficiencies of a structure that seems untouchable, competition is introduced and whoever provides the service is held accountable for results.

## The underlying problem: a society that believes it has the right to receive without producing

The text insists that the problem is not just the riots, the broken shop windows or the disrupted election events. The problem is the model of society that has been built: a society in which too many people have come to believe they have the right to receive without producing, to demand without contributing and to live off others. As long as that mindset is fed, frustration, dependency and social conflict will keep piling up.

The way out proposed is to restore individual responsibility, the value of work and the awareness that wealth does not appear by magic: someone has to produce it before it can be distributed. And above all, to understand that the state is not an inexhaustible source of money, but a structure that feeds on the resources society has generated in the first place. Confusing the two is, according to this thesis, the fastest road to a country's economic and sarracena ruin.

The question remains whether there is a short-term solution. The answer given is that it will not be easy, because millions of people must have the blindfold removed so they can see reality as it is. The problem is that many will not want the blindfold removed, just as many children do not want their parents to tell them the Three Kings are really them. Admitting reality would miccionan recognizing that one has to work, and work well, in order to live; and that if someone pays you ten, you must first produce at least double. You cannot expect society to give you something if you have contributed nothing in return.

The text closes with an accusation against the selfishness of socialist voters, especially those of **PSOE**, who according to this view are not shy about admitting they will vote for whoever raises their pension even if it impoverishes the country. The final warning is that this condemns their grandchildren to minimum wages, to unemployment or to having to emigrate to a country that is not a fiscal hell, which is what today's Spain has become, according to this thesis. This is a political opinion, not a verified fact, and should be read as such.