Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • wlop 57 mp3.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

In the second installment of our “What is Liberalism?” series we discuss the relationship between liberalism and the institution of the police. If a core principle of liberalism is the equal application of the law, then some enforcement mechanism is necessary to ensure the stability of the social order. The problem is that in liberal democracies the police are asked to equally apply the law while maintaining an unequal social order. These two tasks create legitimacy crises for the state.  We discuss how the liberal political economy of the United States explains the exceptional brutality of the police, why it is so difficult to think of a world beyond the police, and how redistribution would ameliorate crime and social disorder.

leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil

References:

Matias Dewey, Cornelia Woll, and Lucas Ronconi, “The Political Economy of Law Enforcement,” Maxpo Discussion Discussion no. 20/1 (2021): 1-28.

Christopher Lewis and Adaner Usmani, “The Injustice of Under-Policing in America,” American Journal of Law and Equality 2 (2022): 85-106.

David Garland, “Penal Controls and Social Controls: Toward a Theory of American Penal Exceptionalism,” Punishment & Society 22(3) (2021): 321-352.

Geoffrey H. Hodgson, “What are Institutions?” Journal of Economic Issues 40(1) (2006): 1-25.

Music:

Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

Comments

John Shaeffer

Somewhat troubled by the continued view of police as a symbolic other that we fixate on is a reason for our strife. Most cops are middle class individuals from the suburbs being exploited by power the same way we view them as a source of our exploitation. Some deeper thinking is required here in order to develop a path for change. Also I do not see how the centralization of power is good for anyone other than those in power.

Philip M

The reason hardly any Americans can get behind a centralized wealth redistribution scheme is they already know how corrupt the production of wealth is, they know that that money would be embezzled and would be distributed as equally as violence is distributed. So no another failed attempt at social democracy is not the answer, the abolition of capitalism is the answer. So don't say we need socialism if you just mean trying to make a happy meal version of capitalism because that clearly doesn't work.

Philip M

And how exactly would centralization address extraction? Americans are less happy with the status quo now that they're feeling a taste of being the object of extraction and not just slaves, immigrants, and imperial subjects. A more functional arrangement of social production metered through some form of welfare ignores how extraction is the fundamental logic of organized production in the industrialized and postindustrial world.

Philip M

Btw do you even read these comments?

Philip M

What's the point of being a patron if you can't bother to read the comments, nevermind respond to them.

What's Left of Philosophy

Hi Philip. Don't worry, we read all the comments. We do not feel obligated to respond to all of them, especially those that criticize us for not addressing issues other than the ones we were discussing in a given episode. For instance, it is not a good faith criticism to say that our endorsement of centralized mechanisms of wealth redistribution is problematic because we didn't address issues connected to extractivism in the global circuit of production. What would a good response to that have been: 'you're right -- we should have made a different episode entirely'? In any case, if you think that the point of being a patron is that it enables you to command our attention at will, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. The point of being a patron is to support the continuation of this project, which takes considerable time and energy. For that you are also given access to many hours of exclusive content that non-patrons do not get to enjoy. Thank you for your support to the tune of five dollars a month for exactly three different months since 2019! -- Gil

Philip M

Wow what a mature response Gil! Yeah I guess it is a lot easier to bud the weakness of your politics behind it being constrained to only the implications of a given topic. If you actually wish to address things in a systematic way, you might want to start looking to expand your horizons. After all this isn't about having a cute sounding essay but actually fixing things. I'm sure it was a big effort to read 4 whole essays so good for you but my money will be better served being put toward an actual radical politic, I'm sorry that the small amount I could contribute as a working person was not enough for you to value a response prior to this petty treatment of criticism.

Michael Wiest

Lillian good on you for signing the philosopher’s letter on Palestine!

Justin Thomas

You're not peaceful being unarmed, you're harmless.

Tom Krell

exceptionally sick episode folks