Before I get started, I must say that I disagree with the statement in the title. Destruction of property can be justified in a protest, so long as
the property you are destroying is directly involved with what it is you are trying to protest. Now, on to my point; I was just scrolling down my wall
on Facebook, and someone who I don't agree with 99% of the time politically (because they're a proponent of communism/socialism in the U.S.) posted
That's an excellent argument that destruction of property can be used in a legitimate way in a protest, HOWEVER, since they do throw race into the
subject, it is obviously about the BLM protests ongoing in the country where looting stores, burning cars and buildings, shutting down interstates and
throwing rocks at cars has gone rampant. This image isn't arguing that destruction of property can be useful in a protest, this image is arguing
that the aforementioned destruction of property is useful in their protest.
It is not.
You see, the Boston Tea Party was a protest against outrageously high taxes on the imported goods the colonists could only purchase from Britain. The
tea they threw into the harbor was still in the cargo aboard a British trading ship. It had not been sold yet, and therefor had not been taxed yet.
The act of throwing it into the harbor ruined the tea, and therefor it could not be sold or taxed, cutting that much off of Britain's revenue from
If BLM's purpose is to bring attention to and stop senseless killing of innocent black people, then looting Walmart, burning cars, and smashing
windows isn't justfied whatsoever. If you were protesting the evils of crony capitalism, then maybe, but since you're protesting police using
unnecessary force against blacks, then this destruction of property is illegitimate.
The only possible destruction of property I can imagine that would support the cause of BLM in this case, and I am not making a suggestion and do not
advise this, but stealing police weapons and destroying them could be justifiable, as it is destroying the police's means of unjustified killings. I
doubt anyone can get close enough to a policeman's weapon without the policeman using it on them, however.
This has been a public service announcement.