We discuss what leads young people to wreck cities, overturn cars, and set buildings on fire. But that is only a small part of the problem.
The heart of the matter is this: if you want people to stop setting buildings on fire, you have to create an environment in which they cannot try to do so with impunity. If you fail to create such an environment, sooner or later someone will give it a try, perhaps just for fun. And if one person gets away with it, others will join in.
Imagine that France and Italy introduced a rule allowing police to carry live ammunition and requiring them to shoot anyone who tries to set a building on fire. The riots would be over within an hour.
Incidentally, this is the state’s primary purpose. A state is an organization that takes control of a territory and imposes a rule there: “We are the only ones allowed to set houses on fire and beat people. If anyone else tries, we will destroy them.” In political and legal language, this is called the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force. By enforcing this rule, along with related rules, society grows richer, and the state rightfully takes its share of that wealth. If the state is wise, it leaves people enough to motivate them to work hard. But if others are also allowed to set fires, the whole arrangement loses its purpose.
Rioting youths would not have to be shot immediately. It makes more sense to escalate deterrent measures until no one dares to continue the violence.
Why does this not happen? Because governments lack both the power and the courage. Too much power is held by NGOs, the media, banks, activist judges, and others. If the protests were, say, against migration, all these groups would find common ground, and there would be no problem beating protesters unconscious and occasionally maiming or killing someone. But when the destruction is carried out under the banner of multiculturalism, the ruling class is divided, and those who want to stop the rampage are not strong enough.