Politicians and commentators still seem confused by the scale of the anger over [the Sydney lock-out laws]. Isn’t it just about nightclubs? Shouldn’t this kind of people power be applied to child poverty, or some other kind of incontrovertibly “real” problem instead? But lifelessness is not just a real problem for an international city. For many of the young and those approaching middle age, it constitutes a final straw. The physical lockout is the final manifestation of a cultural lockout they have suffered for a long time. They have been locked out of the housing market, locked out of affordable education, locked out of the welfare system and secure employment. They have seen their political power and their real wealth shrivel. And now the one area where their expectations had not been curtailed – recreation – is being destroyed as well.
The lockout laws are not the closure of a few pubs because of drunken violence. They are final confirmation of who the country is run by, and who it is run for.
Richard Cook on lockout.
Context for non-Australians, this is talking about a series of laws enacted in Sydney that prevent its bars, clubs, and so on from serving alcohol after certain hours. It basically killed central Sydney, and made a lot of people very, very angry; an anger most of the media painted as “millennial entitlement”. Cook gives one of the best counterpoint arguments I’ve seen. It’s Australian-centric, but I suspect will resonate with a lot of other people, as well.