solidarity against political repression and politically-motivated fbi raids reminiscent of cointelpro

I find it rather disconcerting that state institutions like the FBI are still in the business of targeting groups and individuals (particularly anarchists) for their political beliefs; but it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering that our government has a long history of harassing and/or spying on its own citizens. Unfortunately, the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution don't protect us from the state as much as we're sometimes led to believe, ultimately being little more than words written on a piece of paper that are interpreted and enforced by the state itself, which, from the standpoint of legal positivism, effectively has a monopoly on decision-making and the 'legitimate' use of force (i.e., violence).

Due to this inherent contradiction, constitutions in and of themselves are incapable of restraining governments, or of protecting the rights of citizens from their governments, since, as Murray Rothbard points out in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (quite possibly the only area where I agree with him), "no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men." Moreover, "if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government's own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government. Furthermore, the highly touted 'checks and balances' and 'separation of powers' in the American government are flimsy indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisions are part of the same government and are governed by the same set of rulers." In reality, then, it's up to the people themselves to protect their own rights and freedoms.

Despite what the Constitution says, political views that challenge the authority of the state in any way, shape, or form put themselves, ipso facto, in direct conflict with the state; and the state has shown time and again that it's perfectly willing and able to circumvent its own legal foundation and violate the civil and political rights of its citizens whenever it feels even remotely threatened by political dissent—regardless of whether the grievances provoking such dissent are justified. That's why I think it's imperative for all citizens, regardless of their political leanings, to stand together and show solidarity in these instances and condemn all acts of political repression by the state if political freedom is to have any meaning at all.

lament of the unemployed

"Lament of the Unemployed"

I am the unemployed. Sitting, thinking, worrying about the future: that is me, as I sift endlessly through help-wanted ads, a hapless recruit of the reserve army of labour, that unholy legion, condemned for all eternity to suppress wages and frighten workers into submission by its very existence, and I by mine—a statistical example paraded around factory floors and offices, behind counters and in the fields, throughout workplaces of all kinds, to keep the workers in line.

"See?!" the angels of Capital thunder. "See what happens if you don't play by the rules? See how little you're actually worth when not selling your labour to Capital? Capital gives you meaning! Capital gives you purpose! Capital is your sovereign; and it is through your role as obedient subjects to the whims of Capital that you fulfill your purpose and give your existence meaning!"

I am a phantom, a boogeyman. I am the monster lurking under the working-class' bed at night. I am a warning, a cautionary tale told to all the good workers in order to teach them the blessings of selling their labour for Capital's gain; to teach them the joys of subservience; and more importantly, to instill in them the fear of self-determination and freedom.

"For Capital, and only Capital, is the one, true job Creator! Capital is the alpha and omega, the first and the last!" the angels trumpet. "And it is only through Capital that you may be productive and enter into the kingdom of heaven. Beware! Idle hands are the devil's plaything. Disobedience is the original sin; and the price of sin is death!"

I am the unemployed, my labour-time unrepentantly unproductive in the all-seeing eye of Capital. I am wretched, sinful, and undeserving of salvation; and only through the benevolent grace of Capital can I be saved.

the poverty of middle-class morality

I think Devin does a decent job in her article "Walmart Greeter Buys 6-Pack of Beer & Is Condemned" of illustrating a common double standard in regard to how the middle class judges both the rich and poor, a pseudo-moral judgmentalism that I think ultimately stems from an ideology dominated by wealthy, ruling-class elites since, as Marx notes in The German Ideology, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch." The self-made myth and the meritocracy myth are just two examples of ideas that originate with the ruling class and, due to their ideological dominance, influence the rest of society.

property > people

In reading about the recent events in Anaheim, CA, and reflecting on the events during the height of the Occupy protests, it struck me that, due to liberalism's preoccupation with, and deference to, private property rights, we live in a society where we're actively encouraged by both the media and the ruling class to be absolutely appalled by the breaking of storefronts windows or the burning of a dumpster in the midst of public protest, whilst simultaneously expected to react approvingly of police shooting protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas in an effort to 'maintain order'—where vandalism in the heat of public protest, even when no one's injured, is framed as being completely unacceptable, while reactionary violence by the police that actually puts people in the hospital is lauded, or at the very least, never seriously questioned. That's not to say that I encourage the destruction of property as a means of protest; but I do think it's kind of insane that we, as a society, seem to care more about the damage done to inanimate objects than we do about damage done to actual, living human beings.

in defense of boycotts

In a recent article in the Atlantic, Jonathan Merritt (no relation) asks, Do we really want a country where people won't do commerce with those who have beliefs different than their own? Personally, I'd say the answer is yes, especially if those beliefs translate into active discrimination against, and arguably harm to, minority segments of the population.

In this case, I think marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution (see esp. section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment). But marriage isn't just a civil right, it's a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing.

Unfortunately, that hasn't prevented states from aggressively passing laws and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, effectively stripping same-sex couples of many (sometimes all) of the benefits awarded with those legal partnerships, such as the right to be there in the hospital and make important medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, federally protected family leave time to in the event of a partner's illness, receiving retirement plans and life insurance benefits for a deceased partner, etc. And considering the wide-reaching implications of this kind of monetary support, which can ultimately take concrete form in the shape of laws and amendments targeting and negatively impacting members of the LGBTQ community, I think it's entirely appropriate for individuals who are against this kind of discrimination to boycott organizations that actively promote and support it.

I don't think it's a particularly effective or practical strategy mind you; but I don't think it should be discouraged, either. For one, things like boycotts can at least help to shine a light onto specific social and/or political issues, giving them more media attention than they might otherwise receive, and expanding public awareness in the process. And for those who are against gay marriage and upset people are boycotting Chick-Fil-A, that's the risk you take when you have a business and publicly express your anti-gay marriage position, as well as donate a portion of your profits to 'pro-family' groups that ultimately help to lobby for laws and amendments that discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

Actions have consequences. And it's to be expected that some people might not be very supportive of certain views and forms of political advocacy — especially when they're aimed at negatively impacting a specific minority group that's historically been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority — and consequently, won't want to give their money to companies or individuals who they know may use it to support the very things they're fundamentally opposed to.

the dark knight rises: batman's noble/reactionary message (warning: spoiler alert)

Just saw The Dark Knight Rises. One of the things I liked about it, as with the previous two in Nolan's Batman trilogy, is that it's not just your typical, effects-heavy superhero action film, but one that contains a number of interesting themes and tensions within it, making it intellectual stimulating as well as visually entertaining. One of the things that struck me while watching The Dark Knight Rises, for example, was how prevalent the underlying theme of the 'noble lie' seems to be in the last two films of the series—a concept that makes its first known appearance in Plato's Republic, where it's mainly intended to persuade the citizens of Plato's 'just city' to collectively care for their city and each other (414c–15c).

If Gotham City can be compared to a decaying and corrupted (i.e., fallen) version of Plato's just city, then one of the main underlying theme of The Dark Knight is the noble lie as a necessary evil — as seemingly argued in the Republic (415c–d), and represented in the form of Commissioner Gordon's/Batman's myth of Harvey Dent as an incorruptible hero — while the underlying theme of The Dark Knight Rises is the failure of the noble lie as a unifying and guiding force in the just city. From this perspective, then, Nolan's trilogy can be viewed as type of optimistic parable about the struggle of the just city, which is also a metaphor for the just individual, to handle the truth (as painful or dangerous as it may be), endure adversity, and ultimately triumph (i.e., rise) despite all of its/their inherent imperfections and failings.

The Dark Knight builds up to, and sets up, the noble lie, grooming Dent to be the new hero of Gotham only to have him turn into another violent lunatic who almost murders Commissioner Gordon's son right before his eyes. The noble lie of Dent as an incorruptible hero, which was partially based on his actions as District Attorney, is then created by Batman because that's what he believes Gotham needs, who ends up taking the fall for his death upon himself. In doing this, if we're to compare Gotham City to the just city in Republic, Batman takes the role of the reluctant philosopher-king, the highest role in the Republic's ruling hierarchy of the ideal city. In the Republic, the regular citizens in the ideal city, mostly artisans and labourers, have little say in anything of consequence, and the noble lie or 'myth of the metals' is intended to persuade the citizens of Plato's just city to collectively care for their city and each other, and to willingly go along with the rule of the guardians (soldiers) and philosophers (elite among the guardians) because it's for their own good.

In Gotham, the police play the role of guardians, and Batman, along with Commissioner Gordon and selected politicians (e.g., the mayor), play the role of philosophers. Batman is obviously the philosopher-king extraordinaire, however, being both mentally and physically superior to Gordon et al. He believes that the myth of an incorruptible Harvey Dent is what the city needs, and in The Dark Knight Rises we see that it's worked for 8 years, keeping order in Gotham City and giving the guardians (police) free range to do whatever is necessary to maintain that order, just as Plato argues in the Republic. Eventually, however, the noble lie falls apart, with the truth being revealed by Bane, who's taken over Gotham. This is done in part to demoralize the people and spread chaos, panic, and rebellion, as Bane ultimately wants Gotham to tear itself apart before nuking it into oblivion. But this doesn't happen, of course, as Batman returns to once again save the day, the guardians are all set free from their underground prison by fellow guardian and proto-philosopher-king Robin Blake, and the rebellious Selina Kyle, who possesses guardian/philosopher-like qualities, aides Batman in defeating Bane and reinstating the rule of the elite guardians, who take out the rest of Bane's revolutionary army of homicidal maniacs.

In this, the film is rather reactionary/conservative in tone, as the revolutionaries are portrayed as villains, and the police, as an institution of the state, is portrayed in a fairly heroic light (although it's interesting to note that the army/national guard are portrayed decidedly less so). As Mark Fisher points out in his review in the Guardian, "Bane talks about returning Gotham to 'the people', and liberating the city from its 'oppressors'. But the people have no agency in the film. Despite Gotham's endemic poverty and homelessness, there is no organised action against capital until Bane arrives." And when he does arrive, the people are held hostage by him, his small army, and the convicts who were locked up without parole under the Dent Act.

When viewed from that perspective, and taking into consideration how class warfare is generally portrayed, I agree with Fisher's conclusion that The Dark Knight Rises "demonises collective action against capital while asking us to put our hope and faith in a chastened rich" — not to mention the heroic guardians of the Gotham City Police Department — and not the average, powerless citizens of Gotham. But that's to be expected, I think. Batman is a heroic billionaire playboy, industrialist, and philanthropist after all. Whatever the case, I found The Dark Knight Rises both entertaining and thought provoking, and I'd give it an 8/10 overall.

some rambling thoughts on marx's concept of alienation

One of the practical as well as philosophical issues I have with the capitalist mode of production is the potential exploitation inherent within the system itself, which in its most extreme (and therefore most visible) forms can be found in things like prison labour and sweatshops, but according to Marx's labour theory of value is a characteristic of all forms of wage labour under capitalism. In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism, and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour). In this sense, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not. Moreover, this type of social relationship ultimate debases labour and impedes our positive development as a species.

Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist. Consequently, the product of the worker's labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism). Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.

For Marx, our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, is what sets us apart from other animals. In his view, this ability to produce objects is a part of our essence as a human being. Put another way, Marx viewed human beings as productive creatures that, in the words of Jonathan Wolff, "are able to create according to our will and consciousness in a very elaborate way." But, as Wolff continues, "workers under capitalism, Marx thinks, very rarely have the opportunity to express these powers. So, Marx says, from a human being, the worker is reduced to an abstract activity and a stomach. So rather than being a human being able to express our essence, we are like little machines ourselves." And I think understanding this point of view is integral to understanding an important part of Marx's critique of production under the capitalist system, which he argues not only estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the products of their labour, but estranges and alienates the worker's relationship to the act of production itself.

As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, under the capitalist system of production, the worker's labour becomes "external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind." As a consequence, the worker "only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor." And when viewed from this perspective, it may become easier to understand why Marx saw labour within the context of capitalism as something debasing, particularly for the worker, and why it's ultimately an impediment to achieving self-realization as a species in the sense of resolving "the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species" that's characterized by the "positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement."

From an ethical standpoint, this inherently disparate relationship between capital and labour reminds me of a line from a letter written by Abigail Adams in the spring of 1776 to her husband: "I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of theirs [referring to slave-holding Virginians]. Of this I am certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us." And I think the same sentiment can easily be applied to capital in relation to the wage labourer, at least in the sense of how the latter is coerced under the capitalist mode of production to surrender their labour-power to the former in exchange for their means of subsistence, which is always less than what they actually produce, as well as all rights over the product of their labour.

In essence, from one point of view, both slavery and wage labour can be seen to infringe upon individual autonomy in their respective ways, with former more obviously so, but the latter no less potentially oppressive from the standpoint of labour. As Frederick Engels wrote in The Principles of Communism, "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence." Moreover, the logic of the system, via what Marx termed the 'coercive laws of competition,' forces the hand of capital to exploit labour as much as it can; and at the same time, labour is coerced into the position of working for a wage and fighting for gains that capital quickly counter in an endless struggle punctuated by regular economic crises (these days better known as the 'business cycle'), creating continuous class antagonisms between capital and labour.

Hence much of what's historically been labelled as Marxism and/or socialism has been a search for practical as well as philosophical resolutions to these issues, which isn't to be found in things like equality of wealth or outcomes so much as the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." And Marx's focus, along with socialist movements in general, is in attempting to answer the question of how to liberate society from suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization," a goal that's ultimately achievable via "the liberation of man from a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into the slave of things."

happy birthday, woody.

Today marks the centennial of Woody Guthrie's birth, a working-class musician whose music has inspired and educated generations of musicians and political activists. Guthrie is probably best known for "This Land Is Your Land" — one of the most popular folk songs of all time, originally written as a critical response to Irving Berlin's "God Bless America," which Guthrie felt was overplayed and unrealistic — but he wrote over 3,000 songs throughout his prolific career. Often dubbed 'a poet of the people,' many of his songs were about his experiences travelling with migrant workers through the US during the Dust Bowl era of the Great Depression, reflecting the perspective of working-class Americans and the difficulties they faced in the midst of such economic privation. He also wrote numerous songs celebrating the working class and working-class struggles, as well as protesting social injustice, earning him his status as the father of the modern protest song. His 'hard-hitting songs for hard-hit people' inspired the likes of Bob Dylan to pick up the guitar and Howard Zinn to become a tireless activist for social justice—and their radical optimism continues to resonate, inspiring a whole new generation of listeners. That's one hell of a legacy.

un-fair's 'white privilege' ad campaign doesn't pull any punches

Apparently, there's a new anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota aimed at white Americans that uses a variety of media, including billboards, to address the issue of 'white privilege'—a fairly controversial term, but one I think holds some validity. Personally, I agree with the intent of the ad campaign, as many white people don't seem to realize how privileged or non-discriminated against they are in our society compared to non-whites. Just recently, for example, the Portland Police Bureau admitted that racism may actually be part of the persistent disparity between how often whites and blacks in Portland are stopped and then searched, with blacks and hispanics being twice as likely as whites to be stopped and searched. Quite often, whites (including myself) don't notice or realize these things since we don't have to experience them on a daily basis, so I like the idea of making people more aware that racism is still a problem in our society.

That said, I'm not sure how effective the overall presentation of the message will be. It may actually end up alienating many of the people they're trying to reach out to and educate. When ideas like racism and white privilege are addressed so bluntly, white people seem to have a tendency to automatically get defensive and declare they're not racist or privileged, resenting either implication, and/or invoke 'reverse racism' along with examples of blacks, hispanics, etc. being racist and unfair towards them. The problem, I think, is trying to get the average white person to realize just how pervasive racism still is in our society, as well as the kind of things non-whites have to endure that whites often don't.

Many of the white people I've talked to about racism, for example, often point to affirmative action and complain that non-whites actually have an advantage in society, not realizing that affirmative action, as imperfect as it may be, was put into place because so many people (e.g., employers, colleges, etc.) were discriminating against blacks and other non-whites. It's simply an effort to make things more equal, attempting to counter the damage done from things like slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of people assume that just because Jim Crow laws were overruled in the late 60s, racism must no longer be a problem, and that any non-white who isn't successful must simply be lazy since everything's handed to them on a silver platter these days (as if). But just because we're no longer legally segregated in the US doesn't mean the ideas and prejudices that went into racial segregation aren't still lurking around and a factor in how non-whites are treated in our society. And making people, particularly white Americans, more aware of this racial disparity is the whole point of the new ad campaign.

It's been a slow struggle to change the historically classist, racist, and sexist socio-economic paradigm this country was founded upon, which from the start was created by, and mainly for, white, male property owners; and there's certainly been progress: the move in the mid-1800s to expand the right to vote to include all white males instead of just white, male property owners; black males winning the right to vote in 1870; women winning the right to vote in 1920; the repeal of Jim Crow laws in the mid-1960s, ending state-compelled segregation; etc. Nevertheless, the fact remains that blacks and other non-whites are still disproportionately discriminated against in our society, especially within the criminal justice system (as Katheryn Russell-Brown documents in her book, The Color of Crime), with studies suggesting that many Americans (particularly white males) still have unconscious biases against blacks and the poor, e.g., "Discrimination Against Blacks Linked To Dehumanization," "Unconscious Race and Social Bias Among Medical Students," etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to say that all whites are overtly racist, or that racism is to blame for everything bad that happens to non-whites in the US. But I do think that many of us, regardless of our skin colour, are influenced by racism, consciously as well as unconsciously (just as we are by things like sexism, patriarchy, etc.), and it's intellectually dishonest to deny that it exists, or that the history of institutional racism in this country makes it disproportionately harder for blacks and other non-whites to succeed. Yes, there are certainly opportunities for blacks and other non-whites to succeed; but we shouldn't kid ourselves and pretend that they have an equal chance at succeeding in our society, or gloss over the roles things like class and race play in keeping them from succeeding. And I truly hope that this ad campaign, as off-putting as it may initially seem, will help shine a light onto the continued existence of racism, as well as motivate us to actively challenge it wherever it we find it hiding, especially within ourselves.

police militarization and suppression of dissent as a logical outcome of legal positivism?

Today a friend of mine posted a link to an entry on The Agitator, the website of Radley Balko, a senior writer for the Huffington Post, comparing two police department recruitment videos—one from Decatur, Georgia, and the other from Newport Beach, California. While the first recruitment video presents (at least superficially) a more community-oriented, diverse, and empathetic police force that doesn't necessarily kick ass first and ask questions later, the second recruitment video perfectly characterizes the growing trend of police militarization in the US, particularly how they're trained to confront and subdue citizens with extreme force (unashamedly, might I add).

Unfortunately, long gone are the days of Andy Griffith's Mayberry. Now local police departments are receiving surplus military supplies and weapons from the Secretary of Defense courtesy of the DoD Excess Property Program (aka, the 1033 program); and thanks to the influence of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, local law enforcement agencies are organizing themselves more and more like the domestic arm of the US military, utilizing any means necessary to 'maintain order,' including things like the use of deadly force on unarmed civilians (many of which are minorities and/or mentally ill) and assaulting peaceful protesters with batons, chemical weapons (e.g., pepper spray, tear gas, etc.), flash grenades, LRAD's, etc. like they do in more 'repressive' states such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, etc. It brings to mind a popular quote floating around the internet attributed to anthropologist David Graeber:

‎When we are dealing with the police as an institutional structure, we are not dealing with a group of individuals acting on their own personal feelings and judgments, but rather, with a group of functionaries who have, as part of the terms of their jobs, agreed to set their personal opinions and feelings aside and instead act as obedient agents of the state… Thus, if we are referring to "the police" as an institution, rather than the personal feelings of individual police, no, they are not "part of the 99%", they are the enforcers of the 1%'s power.

And I think Graeber (or whoever said that) has a point. Who, exactly, are they hired and trained to serve and protect? I hate to say it, but when it comes down to it, the police aren't our friends; they're not part of the 99%, and they're not bound by the same laws and restrictions that we, the people, are. It's not that cops are individually or inherently bad people (I know a couple, and they're great, hardworking men and women), or that they're not struggling to make ends meet like many of us are. The problem is that, as an institution, the police are designed to serve and protect the interests of the 1%, the owners and controllers of wealth, the ruling class. Any threat to the status quo, whether peaceful or not, is a threat to the very institution that employs law enforcement, the state.

This, I think, illustrates one of the possible downsides of legal positivism, where laws are considered valid because they're enacted by 'legitimate authority' (i.e., the ruling regime), and the ruled are unconditionally obligated to obey them. As Leo Strauss argues in his essay on Plato in History of Political Philosophy, when "the just is the same as the lawful or legal," there's nothing higher to which one can appeal (37). Moreover, when justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (the idea essentially underlying legal positivism), and the will of the ruling class becomes the sole source of justice since they create and enact the laws that the rest of us, as citizens, must follow, we become trapped within a system where justice doesn't exist for the state since each regime "lays down the laws with a view to its own preservation and well-being" (38). And this is where conflict arises.

Essentially, when the state, whether in the form of a single individual or a body of individuals, "lays down laws with exclusive concern for its own advantage," this makes the police, as an institutional structure of the state, the personification of the 'advantage of the stronger' underlying the justice of legal positivism. So when citizens come into conflict with the state, its laws, or its actions, they come into conflict with justice itself, regardless of whether their grievances are justified. And the police, by virtue of their role as persons empowered by the state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder, must consequently use whatever means at their disposal to maintain order in the name of justice, even if that means harming those simply exercising their constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech and assembly to challenge the state. And the promise of bourgeois liberal rights vanishes in a smoky haze of pepper spray, tear gas, and gun fire.