Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"One of the best contemporary writers on philosophy" National Review
"A terrific writer" Damian Thompson, Daily Telegraph
"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement
Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)
About Me
- Edward Feser
- I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.
Followers
Main website
Books by Edward Feser
- Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature
- All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory
- Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science
- Five Proofs of the Existence of God
- By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (with Joseph M. Bessette)
- Neo-Scholastic Essays
- Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
- Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics
- Aquinas
- The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
- Locke
- The Cambridge Companion to Hayek
- Philosophy of Mind
- On Nozick
Articles by Edward Feser available online
Recommended philosophers' websites
- Alexander Bird
- Alexander Hall
- Alexander Pruss
- Alfred Freddoso
- Angus Menuge
- Brian Davies
- Brian Leftow
- Christopher Brown
- Christopher Martin
- Crawford Elder
- David Braine
- David Oderberg
- David Stove
- David Twetten
- Dennis Des Chene
- E. J. Lowe
- Eleonore Stump
- Francis Beckwith
- Gaven Kerr
- Gyula Klima
- Howard Robinson
- J. P. Moreland
- J. R. Lucas
- James F. Ross
- James Lennox
- John Haldane
- John Hawthorne
- Jonathan Sanford
- Joshua Hochschild
- Katherin Rogers
- Kathrin Koslicki
- Kit Fine
- Lloyd Gerson
- Lydia McGrew
- Mark Anderson
- Michael Gorman
- Michael Pakaluk
- Michael Rota
- Monte Ransome Johnson
- Nancy Cartwright
- Patrick Toner
- Paul Symington
- Robert Koons
- Roger Scruton
- Stephen Boulter
- Stephen Mumford
- Thomas Pink
- Timothy McGrew
- Timothy Pawl
- Travis Dumsday
- Tuomas Tahko
- Tyler McNabb
- Walter Ott
- William Jaworski
- William Lane Craig
- William Vallicella
Aristotelico-Thomism and Neo-Scholasticism: Online resources
- Actus Essendi
- Alan Aversa's Aristotelian Thomism Page
- Aristotelian philosophy of nature
- Center for Thomistic Studies
- Centre for Thomistic Studies (Australia)
- Classical Theism Forum
- Coalition for Thomism
- In medias PHIL
- Institute for the Study of Nature
- Ite ad Thomam
- Leo Elders Home Page
- Maritain Center online archive of Thomistic and Neo-Scholastic works
- Mortimer J. Adler Archive
- Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange: A Biographical Sketch
- Resources on Aristotelian Thomism
- Society for Aristotelian Studies
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
- Thomas Aquinas in English: A Bibliography
- Thomas International Project
- Thomistica.net
- Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses
News, politics, and culture
Catholic websites
- Big Pulpit
- Catholic Encyclopedia
- Catholic Herald
- Catholic World Report
- Crisis Magazine
- Edward Peters
- Fisheaters
- Fr. John Hunwicke
- Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
- Fr. Ray Blake
- FSSP
- Jimmy Akin
- Joseph Shaw
- Latin Mass magazine
- National Catholic Register
- Roman Theological Forum
- Rorate Caeli
- The Catholic Thing
- Una Voce America
- Vatican
Blogs
- American Catholic
- ArmaVirumque
- Bruce Charlton
- Daily Nous
- Dale Tuggy
- First Thoughts
- Hilary White
- Ignatius Press Insight Scoop
- Just Thomism
- Kausfiles
- Keith Burgess-Jackson
- Leslie Marsh
- Martin Cothran
- Matt and Madeleine Flannagan
- Mike Flynn
- On the Square
- Paul Adams
- Power Line
- Prosblogion
- Roger's Rules
- Siris
- Stacy Trasancos
- Taking Hayek Seriously
- The Corner
- The Smithy
- Victor Reppert
- What's Wrong with the World
- William M. Briggs
- Zippy Catholic
Excellent article and very much needed, Ed. This should also help your MAGA detractors realize that you are not a Never-Trumper who reflexively criticizes whatever Trump does. I am the Anonymous who started the sub-chain regarding Trump deserving credit for his opposition to critical theory DEI. I agree with your critique of Trump on the abortion issue. It does seem to me [and Britt Hume and others] that many of Trump's opponents have become so deranged that they now reveal their hatred of the U.S.A. They did not wait until Trump went after immigrants whose only offense was entering the country illegally; instead they oppose deporting violent criminals who are here illegally, and they oppose it by threatening ICE and law enforcement. Madness which must be dealt with strongly or we have no nation left.
ReplyDeletehttps://apnews.com/article/rodney-king-riots-national-guard-los-angeles-69114889118a85f8f29c4d76c076a45f
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/11/los-angeles-protest-history
Excellent articles that explain what is happening in L.A. and how it compares to the past.
DeleteNobody waves the Mexican flags harder than people who themselves refuse to live there.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are CRIMINALS. It is appalling and incomprehensible that they are even allowed to be called Americans at all. The US is more than a Country; it's an Idea. They are challenging and actively trying to destroy the social order and must not be tolerated.
What is the difference between an acceptable and unacceptable protest?
ReplyDeleteNot setting cars on fire and not throwing rocks at the police are a great start to the distinction between what an acceptable protest should be.
DeleteWell, that was easy!
DeleteCome on. The rhetoric being used by Republicans (and Dr. Feser) around these protests is pure hysteria, calling it an "insurrection" or foreign invasion or claiming at that riots "openly and brazenly [show] contempt for the law, and for the police and public officials who are sworn to uphold it," as though the public nature of throwing a brick through a car window makes it an act of supreme anarchy and a rejection of all human social obligation rather than... you know, just ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation. The real problem here is obviously not the act (after all, Trump himself loves a good riot when he thinks his followers can get away with it) but the motivation behind the riots; the crime of daring to dissent from the conservative view on immigration. It frustrates Republicans to no end that California openly defies their preferred approach to immigation control, and since Republicans are constantly predicting complete societal collapse as a consequence for illegal immigation, they *need* that to be what's happening in California. Never mind the fact that there have been no confirmed deaths and scarcely any injuries, or that Trump fairly obviously sees this as a chance to humiliate a political rival by playing the strongman, and that he therefore (to quote a slightly notorious post by Dr. Feser on the 2020 election) has the means, motive, and opportunity to escalate the crisis for his own gain. No, let's just beat our chests and pretend like a perceived threat to "the state" nullifies the principle of subsidiarity, start screaming for Daddy Trump to save us.
ReplyDeleteLordy! Any obstruction of federal law enforcement is legally considered an act of violence, injuries or no, and the federal government has legal authority to enforce immigration law, since it pertains to the whole of the state, not a constituent part.
DeleteHi Thurible,
DeleteDoesn't the "ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation" reject one's "human social obligation"?
Aren't there other ways than rioting "to dissent from the conservative view on immigration"?
Finally, are you claiming that Trump is responsible for planning and executing the riots? If that is the case, then why would you defend the rioters motivations since you've also indicated that they are complicit in Trump's evil scheme?
If California wants to have open borders then that's the kind of "dissent from the conservative view on immigration" that, rather than being supported by the principle of subsidiarity, calls for a squashing. Since, clearly, the Californian state is showing itself inept to deal with immigration. And if there weren't an immigration problem, there wouldn't be rioters.
DeleteOn its own, setting cars on fire might not be the worst of crimes, but it is an especially sure and obvious sign that we are not dealing with a just rebellion or protest. If fact, it is a sign we are not even dealing with an unjust rebellion that is still effective.
DeleteIf we see that there are dead bodies around the protesters, it might still be that they got killed on accident, or that those are people whom the protestors considered spies, or dead protestors. If we see that protestors are throwing Molotov cocktails or stones into police, it might still be that this is a just rebellion, we still have to investigate further. Even setting houses on fire might still be meant as a punishment directed to some specific people thought to be guilty of some specific crimes.
But setting random cars on fire obviously does not help to achieve any goals of a just rebellion or protest.
It is just destruction for the sake of destruction. It is as if someone was desperately trying to provide a counterexample to the proposition that every voluntary human action is directed to some good.
Thus, in a way, such "protestors" are shown not to be merely criminals, but something closer to "hostis humani generis".
You might note that if we look at rebellions that actually achieved their objectives, you will find a suspicious lack of cars being set on fire. Look at Wikipedia's articles about Euromaidan, resistance to 1991 Soviet coup attempt, Ceaușescu's final speech, even October Revolution. Where are the images of burning cars?
is pure hysteria, calling it an "insurrection" or foreign invasion or claiming at that riots "openly and brazenly [show] contempt for the law, and for the police and public officials who are sworn to uphold it,"
DeleteJust how, exactly, is throwing a brick through a car window in broad daylight in front of law enforcement NOT contempt for the law and for the police who were watching as you contemptuously violated the law?
Let's be clear here: it's one thing to peacefully protest (which is legal), and another thing to destroy property as the mechanism of your protest. Speaking out, marching, etc, makes your opinion known to those paying attention, and to those who had the occasion to be near your protest. That's what protests are for, making your opinion - and your discontent - known, by words and actions geared to speech. The speech is legal, and protected activity.
Making your discontent known not by WORDS but by breaking things (that belong to others) is per se immoral and is illegal. It's a different KIND of act than speech to make your POV known. The intent on breaking the law isn't an accidental adjunct that just happens to be attached to speaking, it is the chosen means of expressing your view. By choosing that means, you are intrinsically expressing contempt for the law and for the people present whose office is to defend the law, and moreover that contempt is that you intend to express.
rather than... you know, just ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation.
That's just it: willing wanton property damage with political motivation JUST IS an intent to be a society wrecker.
Most (but not all) of the rioters who have been hoodwinked into the "let's riot to express our discontent" concept may not be explicitly aware of the nature of their action, but their action HAS that nature all the same: "Society" and "law" are not simply a collection of legos that have been accumulated over time, where you can - at will - just re-arrange the pieces however you feel like. Customs and laws are an interwoven fabric of many layers and dimensions, and damage to some of the threads always affects many other parts. Wantonly slicing into the fabric with disregard for its interconnectedness means you cannot readily predict how far the damage will go before the rest of the fabric resists further damage. You cannot intelligibly say "I only meant to bring down a small part of society, (which I don't like), not the whole thing." Throughout history, many small rebellions ended up having far-reaching (and far-destroying) consequences, because one damage leads to another. (For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.)
It is LIKELY that THIS time, an intentionally fomented riot will bring down the CA or US government? No, not likely. But it is likely that doing that will have short range consequences that damage respect for law, which has other consequences that cause more bad laws being made, which has other consequences (like more bad police being hired), which, etc....which then is one of the factors that eventually brings about a destructive revolution. You don't have to predict that THIS riot will bring down society, to note that rioting is of such a nature as to tend toward that result, of its very nature. The fact that many actors in society will try to oppose that destruction - and this time will probably succeed - doesn't change that.
To break up the rioters why don't the police work with the Catholic Church... get some loudspeakers and blast the rioters with music by Marty Haugen and Dan Schuette?
ReplyDeleteJust imagine: they're all angry doing riot stuff and what have you, then their ears are flooded with "Sing a New Song". They pause for a moment, confused, looking around. They go back to their prior occupation of breaking this and tagging that... and then, "Gather Us In". They start shaking their heads to get some space from the suffocating lyrics of a Haugen. By the time "We Are Many Parts" comes on they are sapped of all their strength.
The rhetoric used by Trump at Fort Bragg to justify calling in the army was demeaning to the soldiers attending. To call a few hundred femonazis with rings in their noses an invasion of aliens is truly silly. Riot police exist to deal with riots. Getting the army in to deal with US citizens burning a few boxes is just a cruel joke - for the army, for the "rioters", for everybody. Of course, this is good politics for Trump in his constituencies far away from the pretexts. Careful there. Five minutes of expediency could break the US. Good work Commander in Chief. Nobody has quite done that yet. Oh well, the horrific misdemeanor of irregular residency must justify it.
ReplyDeleteMiguel Cervantes,
DeleteGee. If the rioters are helping Trump politically and you don't want to help Trump politically, then shouldn't you complain that the rioters should stop rioting instead of dismissing them as inconsequential?
TDS
Yes, his speech to carefully vetted members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg was an hour long political rant, where he again claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him.
DeleteIf speech was demeaning why did all the news hours report that he was cheered.
DeleteNo, because the outcome is going to be less importance for the woke mob, a downgrade for the WASP/Trump agenda, and more consciousness for Hispanics. When WASPs moved (through illicit mass migration) into that part of the world, they bought into all of this.
DeleteMiguel,
DeleteI see. So you're saying the rioters are helping Trump politically and not helping Trump politically.
Also illicit mass migration should be allowed, but it is also a bad thing.
I wonder if you listen to yourself.
Getting the army in to deal with US citizens burning a few boxes is just a cruel joke
DeleteNews reports indicate buildings damaged and a few destroyed, dozens of businesses looted, and $23M in damages. That's not "a few boxes". Fireworks rockets and molotov cocktails sent directly into police isn't "a few boxes". Stop being silly.
Riot police exist to deal with riots.
Actually, mayors have asked for, and governors have provided, National Guard units to handle riots, for a long time. Newsom did so 5 years ago. These same National Guard are also called on to deploy for oversees combat missions at times: they are military units. And riot police operational methods are not really much to prefer over National Guard. Quote from AP:
a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings.
She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police “had the green light to continue brutalizing people.”
The difference here is not especially the character of the units being sent in, but more that they were sent by the President, not with the governor's consent but against it. But this not the first time that has happened, either: Eisenhower did it in 1957 to enforce desegregation, and Kennedy did it in 1963.
There is certainly some gray area here: it isn't a massive protest killing hundreds of people, but both the mayor or the governor seems to want ICE and the US government to fail in carrying out its lawful mission of deporting violent illegal aliens and they apparently don't really mind some lawless violence to bring that about, and it was certainly a nationally organized arrangement. There is a similarity to the governors who wanted desegregation to fail. Maybe Trump is playing up the level of danger a bit, but Newsom himself made a political ploy that set the groundwork. They kind of deserve each other.
When WASPs moved (through illicit mass migration) into that part of the world,
DeletePure BS. The vast majority of European immigration into the US before the 1920s was legal. And the vast majority of Anglo movement into the US southwest (which mainly occurred after the US obtained the land from Mexico) was of already-legally-American anglos. While there were some illegal anglos who immigrated to the southwest after the US got a serious immigration limitation policy (e.g. the 1924 Act), it wasn't an illicit mass migration, and the vast majority of illegal immigration into the southwest after that was by Hispanics.
"AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 3:56 PM
DeleteIf speech was demeaning why did all the news hours report that he was cheered."
Because all those who attended were pre-screened :
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/11/bragg-soldiers-who-cheered-trumps-political-attacks-while-uniform-were-checked-allegiance-appearance.html
Hello there George. Good to see you firing on three pistons at least.
DeleteMiller, the answer is to both questions is yes. The ability to make distinctions is vital to good discussion.
Anonymous/e, yes, just a few boxes. Compare to the Champions League riot in Paris, which the Gendarmes handily dealt with despite more than 500 incinerated cars. Its all politics. After getting his headlines, Trump is now calling off the raids on restaurants, farms and clothes manufacturers. He knows too well that deporting all these hardworking misdemeanour dooers will indeed Make America Poor Again, real quick.
But the nonsense will go on. Silly WASP dislike of the Hispanic, Catholic world will keep Trump/Vance/Miller rattling that cage until they really get what they didn’t want.
WASP's moved into this part of the word via mass illicit immigration in the nineteenth century, allowing them to violently takeover what is now the SW of the US.
Miguel,
DeleteI agree that "The ability to make distinctions is vital to good discussion." But since you haven't told us what distinctions you have in mind we are left with contradictions.
I can see the distinctions, but I'm not going to tell you if you can't work it out. Would you like a handkerchief?
DeleteThanks for the offer anonymous person, but I'm good. I'm glad you think you can see unarticulated distinctions, but I'd rather not guess so I'll wait for the author to respond.
DeleteYes. It's quite highbrow round here.
DeleteIt would be great if conservatives who agree with this article would then stop yapping about how China handled Tiananmen Square, or how any communist country deals with counter-revolutionary protests.
ReplyDeleteAs Feser puts it, "riots are not like criminal activity of the kind best dealt with patiently and subtly. Of their nature they require an immediate and severe response."
Catholic Worker,
DeleteSince you are good with how any communist country deals with counter-revolutionary protests, then are you good with Trump's use of federal force in this situation?
So, how many cars did the protestors in Tiananmen Square burn?
Delete"Riot" is not a synonym of "Protest" or "Rebellion".
If the "protestors" would be trying to overthrow the Federal government, to get California to secede, to get ICE to stop enforcing the immigration laws, we would still have to check if their goal is just or unjust.
But none of those goals is furthered by setting random cars on fire.
Instead, serious rebels might consider stealing the cars, stealing the fuel to make Molotov cocktails, moving the cars to make a barricade... But setting them on fire in random positions is just pointless destruction, proving that those "protestors" are merely rioting for the sake of rioting (with any grievances they might be claiming to have being a mere pretext) - and that warrants a harsh response.
As I noted before, somehow even October Revolution did not require setting cars on fire.
The violence in L.A has been greatly exaggerated to suit Trump's authoritarian agenda.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-11/ice-protests-images-los-angeles-distort-reality
I couldn't read the whole article, so am responding to what I could read and to what I surmise was said from this and that, plus what I saw excerpted elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI think the situation is more complicated than this. First, unless you think that the US has never adequately handled riots before, then it's certainly striking that Trump escalated so quickly, and so much more quickly than anyone in the past.
In particular, it seems to me there is a real question -- one we will never now get answered -- whether that did not, in fact, accelerate and worsen the riots. It was certainly not unreasonable to interpret it as a provocation, and provocations in delicate times are foolish, not wise; destructive of the societal order, not conducive to its healing.
Next, there is a real question about the difference between protesting and rioting. This seems to be complicated. Many of those present seem to be protesting in an acceptable and peaceful way. Yet our country now has a group of hardened agitators who will try to turn any protest into a riot, it seems (especially on the left, though I foresee that spreading to the right). Undoubtedly the rioters must be dealt with, and harshly, and yet the government should and must keep in mind who the enemy is, here, what their goals are, and that in a sense both sides (protesters and government) should want these agitators brought down and brought to justice.
I don't see Mr. Trump's rhetoric to be in any way sensitive of that, or anything other than dishonest and likely to agitate worse.
Next, Mr. Trump is clearly interested in calling this an "insurrection," and I think that if one is honest, it's pretty clear that the reason he's interested in that is so that he can invoke the insurrection act and take unprecedented steps of exercising power against Americans at home. This is a purely authoritarian impulse, in line with many of his other actions. To ignore this dynamic here seems culpably naive, to me. Every authoritarian is looking for a crisis in which to permanently step up exercise of state power. To ignore this and to encourage one to act any more harshly than necessary -- not that some harshness is not, in fact, required here -- is exceptionally irresponsible at best.
SMack,
DeleteYou make some good observations with some balance. Let me add some things I think you missed.
This is not the first time we've seen these types of organized riots spiral out of control so it is not unreasonable to predict that this one too would have without the National Guard being called in. So Trump could have kept hands off like last time or take action like this time. I like the odds of much less death and destruction with the Guard in control. The left won't stop calling him a dictator in either case, so they've essentially given him nothing to lose on that front.
Regarding provocations. The rioters (and Newsom's inaction) was the proximate provocation of Trump action of calling in the National Guard (and by the way this type of action is not unprecedented). It's certain that the organizers and their compatriots saw this possibility are were ready with the pre-written "Trump is Hitler" press releases. I don't think anyone who has been paying attention doesn't already know this.
Taxpayers are paying a group of NGOs to stage protests and riots, paying for the destruction the rioters cause, paying for the police to stand around watching the destruction and then paying more for LE to end the destruction. I'm pretty sure taxpayers are also paying for the embedded LE in the rioting group.
It's all a really bad (and unoriginal) theater performance that we're all forced to pay for.
Next, there is a real question about the difference between protesting and rioting. This seems to be complicated.
DeleteIt's not really that complicated. In a peaceful protest, people hold signs, march, chant slogans, call out evil behavior and evil people, and obey lawful order. In a disorderly but still non-violent protest, the protestors don't first get permission to use the park or street, but then they do all above stuff. They cause disruption by being in places where they didn't have license to be (e.g. blocking city streets) but not by violence or destruction. In a petty destructive protest, people engage in MINOR acts of vandalism, e.g. strewing trash around, along with the above, and generally run away from the police in order not to be caught, but they don't FIGHT with the police. When you have people destroying cars, street equipment, trashing stores and other private buildings, and engage the police with active resistance by fighting or similar means, there you have a violent protest with "modest" damage. When you have people burning buildings and cars, and EVEN A FEW people are killed, and many police are directly threatened with injury or death, that's a riot.
I have gone to the March for Life protests a couple dozen times: there was never a shred of violence or destruction of anyone's property. It's easy to protest without it getting out of hand. If destruction and violence are occurring widely, it's because some people want it to.
Good example Anonymous.
DeleteThe National March for Life annually protests the intrinsically evil act of killing innocent people without violence or disorder of any kind.
I'll bet all of the LA rioters are also abortion supporters.
Just so long as you also agree that the right to speak, to assemble publicly and to protest should be protected, and that the actions of a few idiots don’t cancel the rights of the others.
ReplyDeleteActually, the actions of a few idiots CAN restrict the rights of others - at least temporarily. For example, the LA Mayor imposed a curfew, surely a restriction, on account of the disorders. More generally, when a riot has broken out, the rights of peaceful protestors can be temporarily set aside to quell the riot: the government can tell them that they can protest some other time or some other place, but not right now in the middle of chaos. Insisting that you have a right to continue to protest right there, after violent agitators have fomented destruction of property and reckless endangerment of persons, is just dumb.
DeleteBecause it is now clear that the same underlying groups of agitators have pushed the violence agenda for years, (having a hand in other violent events e.g. BLM) it is problematic to turn a blind eye to the connectedness of the protest movement here being pushed, and the organized violence of these background players. Each individual protest might have some (maybe most) innocent persons who just want to protest, but some of them want chaos and disorder, and some of the organizing people explicitly want the violence. These are not spontaneous protests that just happen to all occur at the same time to urge "no king".
Surely "spontaneity" isn't a pre-requisite for the exercise of one's constitutional rights.
DeleteI don't know if I've ever participated in a protest before the first election of our current president. But I've witnessed or participated in local demonstrations such as BLM, the Women's March, and No Kings, and I've personally never seen a single act of violence, or its aftermath.
I wouldn't have bothered to even post here were it not for our current president's threatening that anyone who protested--just protested-- against his military parade should expect to be opposed with force. I know he's not exactly a master of nuance, but the clear implication was "Sit down and shut up."
Sorry, by the way, to be posting anonymously. The name is Rick Allen. My url was found invalid, repeatedly, for some reason.
Also, peaceful protestors could just keep the order themselves, restraining the rioters. It is not unheard-of.
DeleteBut, of course, in order for that to happen, the peaceful protesters have to want the order.
Both sides are being told different stories, seeing different "movies", and being fed different narratives about what is going on. Be wary that you diligently check both sides - forming your judgment on the basis of partial or heavily biased information (say, information that plays up, or plays down, the seriousness and extent of violence going on) is a very bad idea. Remember that both sides are trying to sell you a story, and act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI'm not against harshly suppressing riots in principle, but what if they are or they will be methods of suppressing riots relatively non-harshly, or with less harshness? I mean riot control methods that specialized police units use. There are ways of using specific tactics and strategies, psychology etc. so that riot can be delt with effectively, but with less harshness than just using brute-force methods, like unspecialized units may use. For example skillfully using verbal communication, combined with threats, deescalating violence, targeting specific individuals that incite and escalate violence (not all demonstrators may be violent), skillfully dispersing crowds. High levels of harshness (especially undiscriminatory) may be inflamatory, escalate violence, make demonstrators radicalized and because of this reasons less harsh methods can sometimes be more effective in dispersing a crowd. All im saying is we have specialized units for a reason and their specialization is not in being more brutal necessarly.
ReplyDeleteHi beekeeper177,
DeleteDo you have some examples of these techniques, who uses them and where they have been used effectively? Do you think that the LAPD, the National Guard and Marines are unaware of these technics?
I doubt that anyone, especially Dr Feser, thinks indiscriminate harshness is morally acceptable. And I wonder what US LE organizations think it is effective to brutalize everyone. I'll want to stay out of that town.
1. Relatively few demonstrators are "rioters." Justice requires that a response to people destroying property (or worse) not spill into wholesale violent actions by state personnel against non-violent demonstrators. To bring in the military at an early stage, when the LAPD is already trained in handling such disturbances, requires justification more nuanced than a blanket invocation of Natural Law.
ReplyDelete2. Inclusion of the modifier "harsh" runs on thin ice. It's VERY easy for the harshness to become a desideratum as a feature not a bug. A state that begins to value harshness as such begins to sow the seeds of its own weakness. Look at Iran. "Harsh" as a piece of rhetoric is not needed for police actions to be swift and just--those will deter.
ficino4ml,
DeleteI couldn't read the entire article because I don't subscribe.
Did Dr Feser claim he favored violent actions against non-violent demonstrators? And did he merely invoke a blanket invocation of Natural Law as the only reason for approving bringing in the National Guard early?
Finally, do you think there are any cases where "harshness" is appropriate? If so, is dealing with a riot one of those times or not.
From what I could read, Dr Feser was not advocating for harshness "as such". He was advocating for it in this case and claimed that not taking harsh action was analogous to failing to repel an act of war.
The French gendarmes dealt with the Champions League riot in Paris two weeks ago. No need to get the army involved, despite 264 cars being torched. Makes Los Angeles' loss of five self-driven cars look like a picnic. It's all just politics. The Left haven't a hope of running any sort of insurrection, as their idiotic, loser slogan "No Kings Day" proves. But, thanks to Trump and Vance and Miller letting their dislike of the Catholic world to their south get them all emotional and reckless, a new player may be in the making.
ReplyDeleteMiguel,
DeleteSince that riot in Paris came after a sports victory celebration and the LA riots were planned and coordinated assaults on the federal government there is no comparison. Trump didn't send in troops to Philly after the Super Bowl riot either.
Did you know that illegal immigration is a felony under Mexican law? So does Mexico hate all other countries?
"The French gendarmes dealt with the Champions League riot in Paris two weeks ago. No need to get the army involved, despite 264 cars being torched." - gendarmes are a part of the French Armed Forces, so, apparently, there was a need "to get the army involved".
DeleteAlso, as far as I can tell, the army (or National Guard) was used, because the Federal government has a right to order army around, but has no ordinary uniformed police force it could use instead (and the State government is mostly on the side of the rioters).
I'm really surprised that you are deliberately omitting the fact that two people were killed, and at least 192 other people were injured, just to soften the fact of the nature of the attacks in California and push your (obvious) political ideas through the comment section.
DeleteI live in a third-world country, and not even here are people so aggressive (save, Rio de Janeiro) as these riots in California. If the police force is inapt to the task, the next step is military or federal intervention (as in any Republic, we also had that here in Rio). So, next time, don't try to eschew or omit relevant facts (like the death toll or the number of injuries) to soften the fact and push your political ideas dishonestly as the way you did -- that's kinda cringe.
MP,
DeleteThanks for the information that the French gendarmes are a part of the national French Armed Forces. I learned something new today.
No. The Gendarmes are not really the army. Like the Guardia Civil in Spain, and the Carabinieri in Italy, they are styled military forces and have generals etc, but they don't fight in wars, as a rule. The US National Guard is a reserve force for the army. Mostly part timers, they are inadequate for dealing with both wars and excitable protestors. As for the marines, no comment on their day and a half training program for dealing with protests. Banana republic stuff.
DeleteAnonymous
DeleteYes, the Gendarmes are really part of the French Armed Forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie
The National Guard and Marines have both been deployed during riots in the past. In fact actually in LA.
Technically but not really, because the gendarmes, carabinieri and Guardia civil do not fight wars, as a rule.. Past use of part time soldiers to handle protests has been as unfortunate as this one. With the peanut in Chief now threatening to kill other heads of state, the US is fast becoming the world's biggest joke.
DeleteThe gendarmes serve one purpose of the French Army, so yes, they are "really" part of the French Armed Forces. Just like the National Guard becomes part of the US Armed Forces when activated. Your TDS is noted.
DeleteTechnically, but this function is not
Deletea military one, just like the cababieri and the Guardia civil. The National Guard's relationship to the Army has nothing to do with this. Please keep returning to repeat the same misunderstood point.
I agree you keep misunderstanding, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that Trump did not send in the "army" which means the original claim was false according to your own terms.
DeleteHe sent in the part time army without a clue. The worst of both worlds and no comparison to the gendarmes. Checkmate. You ought to change the subject.
DeleteI'm satisfied. You now agree with me that Trump did not send in the "army".
DeleteThanks for the conversation.
Here’s a solid natural law-based counter-argument to Edward Feser’s claim that the president has an unfettered moral duty to "suppress the riots":
ReplyDelete---
🧠1. Natural Law & the Common Good
While natural law emphasizes safeguarding the common good, it also demands that authority serve justice and the human dignity of all individuals. The mere presence of disorder or civil unrest does not automatically justify any and all force. Instead, the state must act justly—using no more coercion than is strictly necessary, and always prioritizing both public safety and moral proportionality.
---
2. Distinguishing Protest from Riot
Feser lumps all civil unrest together, but natural law tradition—rooted in thinkers like Aquinas—recognizes a crucial distinction:
Peaceful protest expresses legitimate grievances and is often a morally necessary response to injustice.
Rioting or looting, by contrast, harms the innocent and undermines the rule of law.
A natural-law-aligned response demands nuanced discernment and targeted action: protect both law and moral protest, while isolating and containing violence.
---
3. Subsidiarity & Local Cultivation
Natural law supports subsidiarity—public order is best achieved locally, by actors closest to the conflict (e.g., city and state governments). A heavy-handed federal intervention can disregard local understanding and escalate violence. If, say, California or its municipalities have working protocols and experienced police or the National Guard ready to manage unrest, jumping the federal chain can undermine local autonomy and violate the moral limits on power.
---
4. Principle of Double Effect
Under natural law, using force may be permissible if the harm caused is not disproportionate to the objective of restoring public order. Crushing dissent under an “iron fist,” however, risks overreaction—suppressing not only violence but free expression, thereby damaging the very moral foundations that justify governmental power.
---
5. Justice Rooted in Rights
Natural law isn’t authoritarian; it’s rights-based. It affirms:
Right to lawful assembly and to protest.
Due process even for individuals accused of violent acts.
Blanket use of force without assessing individual guilt, or broadly criminalizing protest, violates those rights. That would conflict with natural law’s insistence that authority must be just, not arbitrary.
---
⚖️ Final Thought
A natural-law defense of federal intervention would need to show that (1) riots seriously threaten the common good, (2) local authorities are utterly unable, (3) force is narrowly tailored, and (4) fundamental rights remain protected. But Feser’s argument tends to treat unrest as a monolithic threat—ignoring vital moral distinctions among protest, disturbance, and violence.
In short, natural law demands both moral rigor and restraint—not blanket authoritarian force.
This looks like something coming straight outta ChatGPT or Grok...
DeleteGenerative AI? Which one? And what prompt did you use?
DeleteBy the way, "Feser lumps all civil unrest together" with dividing it into "Peaceful protest" and "Rioting or looting" is already pretty clearly not right, as even the first sentence already talks about "Edward Feser’s claim that the president has an unfettered moral duty to 'suppress the riots'".
Not that this is very surprising: Generative AI does not really understand what the text says (if you read more of this blog, you can probably already guess that something like "intentionality" might be relevant here). Be careful with it.
So, do you have an argument you yourself would like to make?
Hey, ChatGPT, this is not a counter-argument to the article since it expressly allows suppression in precisely the circumstances which Feser recognized.
Delete@MP
DeleteArguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it.
It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument, but more of an argument of the type or scope of response that natural law truly allows and requires.
Peace be with you mate
It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument,
DeleteThat was not the original claim as shown below:
"Here’s a solid natural law-based counter-argument to Edward Feser’s claim..."
"Arguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it."
DeleteBut the problem is that a machine (which cannot reason at all) articulated it. It is like getting advice on Ethics from Peter Singer: he may get a concept or another *right*, but some weird scheissa will happen along the way.
"@MP Arguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it." - unfortunately for you, AI is not a "who", it's a "what".
DeleteAnd if you do not think that the task of extracting an argument from all this text is worth the effort, why are you unhappy that others also think it is not worth the effort?
(Also, I did read that text, and there seems to be one rather interesting argument, partial answers to which have already been given in other comments. But I refuse to give any more details before you give some sort of "proof-of-work".)
"It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument, but more of an argument of the type or scope of response that natural law truly allows and requires." - so, I'll repeat my question: what was the prompt?
You know, we can at least learn something useful about writing prompts...
@ Anonymous who formulated a NL counter-argument: good points. You express more fully what I was trying to express.
ReplyDeleteThe parade in Washington was self-defeating if intended to convey a sense of order and authority. The marching was so out of line and undisciplined that might have been a gathering of recruits. Trump was having a birthday, but where were the other dignitaries of the nation? The President's non-stop antics are making the country look evermore like a banana republic.
ReplyDeleteExcept on January 6, which Donald Trump instigated, right Dr. Feser?
ReplyDeleteNo, no exceptions.
DeleteNick,
DeleteHow about you? Do you support just as vigorous a prosecution of the LA lawbreakers as those charged in the January 6th event?
Trump pardoned them.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI asked Nick the question, but in case you are Nick, all that answer does is dodge the question I asked.
A large number of January 6 protesters went to jail for years. The question was whether he thinks the LA lawbreakers should be charged and sentenced the same as those J6 people.
Here is a J6 person that was in jail for 18 months for holding a door closed and shoving an officer's riot shield. He thinks the LA protesters are worse:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/6-reasons-no-kings-riots-are-far-worse/#comments
I'm not defending his actions that resulted in prison time. I agree with Dr Feser that people who break the law should be prosecuted.
I'm just want to see if the people downplaying the LA riots are going to apply the same standards to his behavior as to those whose cause they sympathize with.
It looks like business interests, economic reality and widespread protests are causing to Trump to rethink his immigration policy.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-reversal-may-exempt-farms-hotels-immigration-raids-rcna212958
Well, it should. There is something strange about seeing heavily armed men chasing young farmworkers down a produce field just because they are undocumented migrants.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOev2uQtN8
Not so unusual. Lawbreakers usually try to avoid arrest.
DeleteI don't consider an undocumented immigrant who hasn't committed a criminal offense and who has been working here for years a lawbreaker.
DeleteHalf of all farm workers are undocumented immigrants. Neither do the majority of Americans consider them lawbreakers.
Anonymous,
DeleteIt's a good thing then that you are now getting correct information. You may have got yourself into trouble otherwise.
Here is the AI generated answer:
Here's a breakdown:
First Offense (Misdemeanor):
Fines under Title 18, Imprisonment of up to six months, and Or both fine and imprisonment.
Subsequent Offenses (Misdemeanor, or Felony if previously deported):
Fines under Title 18.
Imprisonment of up to two years.
Or both fine and imprisonment.
Re-entry after deportation can result in significantly harsher penalties, potentially up to 20 years in prison, especially with prior convictions.
Other Penalties:
Marriage Fraud:
.
Can result in up to 5 years imprisonment, fines up to $250,000, or both.
Re-entry after Removal for Specific Crimes:
.
Penalties vary but can include up to 10 years for a single felony (other than aggravated felony) or 3 misdemeanor convictions involving drugs/crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony.
Deportation:
.
Regardless of the criminal penalties, individuals apprehended for illegal entry or re-entry face deportation proceedings.
Civil Penalties:
.
In addition to criminal penalties, civil penalties like fines may be imposed.
In the spring of 1936, my grandmother, Ilse Stanley, had just returned from a theater tour that had kept her away from Berlin for almost the whole winter, only to discover a city in which "more and more friends were missing." Soon after her return, a cousin arrived at her home. The Gestapo, her cousin told her, had taken her husband away to a concentration camp. In her 1957 memoir, The Unforgotten, my grandmother describes asking her cousin about the reasons for her husband's arrest Her answer:
ReplyDelete"Because he was a criminal with a record. He had paid two fines in court: one for speeding and one for some other traffic fine. They said they finally wanted to do what the court had missed doing all these years: to get rid of all Jews with criminal records. A traffic fine a criminal record!"
Gee. Does the Jewish state of Israel now allow illegal immigrants to stay in Israel because of this?
DeleteI didn't think so.
@bmiller
DeleteYour kingdom is of this earth
No Anonymous June 17, 2025 at 8:52 PM, I am only a pilgrim on a journey which I hope ends with my Savior Jesus Christ.
DeleteStop with your AI
ReplyDeletehttps://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ocpd/child_protection/training/day3/immigrationcheatsheetbysnhforgalamcclasspdf.pdf
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence/
This is from a businessman who uses undocumented workers:
https://www.wptv.com/news/palm-beach-county/let-them-stay-deportation-changes-for-undocumented-farm-hotel-and-restaurant-workers
This small town was solidly for Trump. The ICE arrested Carol.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/us/missouri-immigrant-trump.html
The man from Denmark, married with children, working here for many years made a error in his paperwork and has been imprisoned by ICE
https://www.wlbt.com/2025/05/20/danish-man-living-mississippi-detained-by-ice-naturalization-meeting/
Trump voter begs immigration court to release her terminally ill father who is undocumented
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DK-4_NloW2_/
Undocumented immigrants support our economy
https://alabamareflector.com/2024/08/02/study-says-undocumented-immigrants-paid-almost-100-billion-in-taxes/
Anonymous of June 17, 2025 at 2:47 PM
DeleteIt seems you were trying to respond to me because you said "Stop with your AI" but then most of the links you posted were irrelevant to the subject.
The only relevant link, www.findlaw.com, agrees with what I posted regarding people illegally entering the US, which the people on the Youtube most likely did. If they had visas and overstayed they are also to be deported and then face stiffer penalties if they come back in illegally.
So you should now change what you do or do not consider breaking the law to conform with reality.
The links were relevant. but you either didn't read them, didn't understand them, or you wish to remain ignorant. And there was no Youtube video. It was Instagram.
Delete"So you should now change what you do or do not consider breaking the law to conform with reality." "Change what I do?" "Breaking the law?" Huh? I don't need to conform with reality. But you have lost contact with reality.
Anonymous June 18, 2025 at 1:58 PM,
DeleteThe subject was breaking the law. Specifically the people attempting to avoid arrest by ICE agents whom I labeled as lawbreakers as shown in the Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOev2uQtN8. You claimed that you did not think they were breaking the law, so I've been trying to show you what the law is, how they broke the law and the penalties for breaking the law.
I can tell from your descriptions and the titles of the links that most are not related to what the law is. That some people may have been mistakenly arrested, should be released for health reasons, support our economy etc, etc etc have nothing to do with the reality of what the law is and what breaking the law means. That is the reality I am talking about.
You misunderstood the statement you quoted at the end. The meaning is that since it seems you did not understand the reality of what the law is, you should change your understanding to match reality. What you do consider breaking the law and what you do not consider breaking the law should match reality. Don't you agree?