Monday, October 12, 2020

FOR THE SAKE OF HARMONY: An Enchiridion for Composing Music PART 1

 




FOR THE SAKE OF HARMONY

:An Enchiridion for Composing Music

by 

Thomas Calandra


PART ONE

Music is a dreadful thing. What is it? I don't understand it. What does it do?

It exalts? Utter nonsense! If you hear a marching band, is your soul exalted? No, you march. If you hear a waltz, you dance. If you hear a mass, you take communion. It is the power of music to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer. The listener has no choice. It is like hypnotism.”

- Ludwig van Beethoven from Immortal Beloved


Music, love, death. Certainly a triangle of sorts; maybe even an eternal one. "The only people who can see the whole picture," he murmured, "are the ones who step out of the frame." - From Salman Rushdie’s The Ground beneath her feet


The Silent Teacher


The silent teacher is the empty page. You got to look at that empty page and say, “man, somebody’s trying to tell me something, I gotta start to listen.” Because the process to me, and I think the process to most artists, doesn’t feel like creation so much as it feels like discovery.”

- David Mamet


A band I use to be in did an interview for an online magazine once, and the interviewer asked us, “why we write music?” I answered, “In reality, writing music is more than an output. People will say music for them is like an output to let off steam, as the example goes, but in reality it's like an addiction. It’s physically impossible for us not to do this. I can’t not write music.”


A third person observer whom was paying close attention, or perhaps you dear reader, might have noticed that I didn’t actually answer the interviewer’s question. I myself probably would agree, but not because I didn’t have an answer for her, but because I hedged my bets. For if I would have elaborated further and explained that when it comes to why I myself write music, my answer would have been that “I have no choice in the matter,” with all of the cognitive gymnastics I could muster in order not to sound like a pretentious douche bag, or a religious schizophrenic.


The above quote by Mamet is spot on when it comes to music, and that it is less like you are composing something and more like you are locating something. Anyone who has picked up and instrument and has attempted to write something knows that there is a point where you realize that you aren’t choosing the next note, but that you are finding the next note, like unearthing a treasure that has been there all along.


I think I need the demons to write, but the demons have gone. It bothers me a lot. I have tried and tried, but I just can’t find a melody.”

- Brian Wilson


Has a thought, even as simplistic as “I should exercise more,” suddenly emerge in your head out of nowhere? Perhaps right now you are reading this sentence, but my words have competition with a never ending succession of thoughts that unfold and usurp your attention. Anyone who has ever had to study for a test understands this phenomenon perfectly, yet, unfortunately this is the only time we notice this cognitive punishment happening. However, all the other moments of your life it is happening as well; you are just conscious of it as much as you are conscious of oxygen.


This banal mundanity is the Buddhist concept of suffering called Sankhara Dukkha, which in the context of music, melodies and rhythms that arises in our minds is not due from the Mozartian notion that the composer is the instrument God uses to bring praise to Himself, but because our minds are not singular, nor are they permanent in any way. And we suffer because of this. Our minds are the product of an infinite causality with each cause having origins that have a firewall of darkness. Yogis and contemplates spend years or even decades in meditation to simply try to somewhat mitigate the best they can the onslaught of thoughts that arise in consciousness. A serious breakthrough in meditation is not when one is able to have moment of thoughtless serenity, but simply when one is able realize just how difficult it is to have a moment of thoughtless serenity.


So to answer the interviewer’s question, it should not be shocking to us that melodies and riffs and rhythms just emerge in one’s mind; patterns or structures of orchestration appear in your head sometimes almost prearranged, pre-composed, and pre-performed, and all you have to do is look and listen as if it were a private recital of faceless automaton playing what “you” “wrote.” When it comes to the melodies or patterns of rhythms that emanate in your own brain, the best way to exorcise them from your mind is to arrange them to be played in some spacial-temporal place in the external world. Do not try to beat back hordes of harmony pillaging your thoughts. You will lose. No matter how much you adore music, incessant emerging thoughts of music, like incessant thoughts in general is a form of suffering. Many say composing and playing music is their escape, their drug of choice, or their mistress, but has an immense potential to become a burden, where the only semblance of mental liberation comes in the form of the few hours between the composition of one song is done, and the next begins to emerge. Here, composing music is less like an opiate flooding one’s brain with dopamine, and more like setting down a bag of bricks. It is less like a licentious mistress with both the willingness and aptness too surrender to whatever Hedonistic fleshthirst one’s godless mind can author, and more like dealing with your Ex, whom you have to hand over your children to every other weekend and holiday. The purpose of this warning against musical nihilism is not to frighten you, but to hopefully vindicate those fellow composers who may experience the same phenomena, but not know if they are the only ones. Perhaps too it is to reveal that one doesn’t don’t have to love music to write it. And just like any occupation anyone does, one doesn’t have to love it to be good at it.


The Speaking Teacher


The speaking teacher is the audience. You can not learn anything about writing...without writing, putting it out in front of an audience, and getting humiliated, because nothing makes sense until you do that, until you used your consciousness and said, “this will kill em! This is the best thing anyone has ever wrote. It’s going to grab them by the throat, and they wont be able to look up.” And then you watch the audience go to sleep. And you are humiliated. You found you were in error. You have to try again. And if you’re easily shamed, then you’re not going to learn.”

- David Mamet


That’s the Frailty of genius, John, it needs an audience.”

- Sherlock Holmes


When asked what I think are the most erotic words in the language, I sometimes think slowly, “Captive audience.”

- Christopher Hitchens


Musicians and songwriters today as well as Baroque, Classical and Romantic period composers have been always seen as Gods, for what I think to be three reasons: first, composing music, especially arrangements for large bands, choirs and orchestras, appears to the us mere listeners as tantamount to the creation of a soul that was previously nonexistent: a meta-soul, a somewhat spiritual superstructure, where the voices and labors of many beings are decluttered from the chaos of the mundane, and remade into a single entity that is to the hearer both as tangible as any flesh, and as incorporeal as any apparition.


The second must be the timelessness of certain music, which means that the designers of these songs share with God the trait of eternity. Composers and songwriters whom have long past on are immortal in the music they mercifully leave us, and who have melodies that are still echoing through the halls of the collective conscious of not just our civilization or present day culture, but the residual future of he human condition it impacted.


The third and final reason is the only one out the three that I myself submit to, because it is the only one that doesn’t sound like an edict of Divine Right, and it is the only one that is useful or helpful in the task of composing music, and that is that the composer has the power to manipulate one’s emotions merely by organizing sounds in a particular manner. A sort of Emotional hypnotism: the power to dictate the passions of others.


Hierarchies within species seem to be spurred by one member’s ability and means to control resources, and there is no more valuable resource than the will of others. God gave man free will, which is the faithful’s timeless answer to the question of why an omnipotent deity does not stop the suffering inflicted by evil men. The composer, however, like the Sirens of Greek Mythology, has the capacity to usurp man’s free will, and make him be the earthwork and fodder in the most useless battle, or make her dance onto her knees, begging, not to be loved, but to be the mere surrogate for a love that if came to be would assuredly be a disappointment. By beckoning the listener’s will to their submission, the composer momentarily gives truth to solipsism, with the composer’s consciousness monopolizing that of the collective, like a virus, a tsunami, or a cancer. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s iconic detective Sherlock Holmes said that “The frailty of genius is that it requires an audience,” which is a paradoxical tragedy being that such power invokes, as does godliness itself, the ultimate loneliness. If you got into music to meet people, don’t. Not because you couldn’t hack it, but because the better music you encounter, the more you will be met with emptiness.


A moment by moment, second by second manipulation of the listener’s emotions, anxiety, stress, and capacity for love and violence is exactly how one should go about writing a song.



The Enemy of Democracy


You don't decide to be a writer; you are one or you are not one. This drives people crazy, because everybody thinks it’s easy to just sit down and scribble, and that’s it. Well, it isn’t, and you have to have a certain gift, which is not art. It’s not a democracy. In fact, art is the enemy of democracy.”

- Gore Vidal


 “All I wanted was to sing to God. He gave me that longing... and then made me mute. Why? Tell me that. If He didn't want me to praise him with music, why implant the desire? Like a lust in my body! And then deny me the talent?”

- Antonio Salieri


Though the great author of Lincoln, and self-proclaimed biographer of America, Gore Vidal, was speaking as a writer of language in the form of novels and essays, his closing remarks, “art is the enemy of democracy,” applies to all the forms of aesthetics from writing, to painting, to film-making, to acting, and to most importantly, to the composition of music, where, as Frank Zappa said, “The air of the performance is sculpted into something,” and as Edgard Varese famously proclaimed that “Music is organized sound.”


The art of composing music is the clearest enemy of democracy, because a system where the authority to govern over the people is derived from the people themselves, is predicated upon the idea of equality of each individual within the democracy. Thus when voting on whether or not laws should be enforced, or voting for representatives in a legislature, (whom best take your needs and values into consideration when producing laws or rejecting laws) each individual's vote is equal to everyone else’s vote, and no one person’s vote is valued more or less than another. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Though it took well more than a dozen years after this maxim was written for the United States to officially include all men, and a few more years after that to include the other half of humanity with these unalienable rights, this Creator either forgot or didn't think too much about endowing all people with the ability to write a bloody song.


"Antonio Salieri: Leave me alone.

Father Vogler: I cannot leave alone a soul in pain.

Antonio Salieri: Do you know who I am?

Father Vogler: It makes no difference. All men are equal in God's eyes.

Antonio Salieri: [leans in mockingly] *Are* they?”

-from Amadeus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9NG_NPLktA

Music is the great enemy of democracy, precisely because music is the proof that everyone is not created equal.

We tend to find comfort in believing that beauty, and therefore art, is in the eye of the beholder, for a couple of reasons: the first, is that we think that the music that a person loves says something about who that person is, and therefore a qualitative difference in music taste means a qualitative difference in individual people, and this is amplified in magnitude when it comes the music people write, compare to just that which people enjoy listening to. The second, is because music is like religion, even the minds of unbelievers; “He who sings, prays twice,” says, Saint Augustine. Therefore, to many, it can’t be quantified. The evolutionary biologist, and American Paleontologist, Stephan Jay Gould said that religion and science were “non-overlapping magisteria,” and for many, music and science are equally mutually exclusive. If music has values, and those values are quantifiable, then science can determine what is music of higher value compared to music that is objectively, and scientifically verified to be inferior. And the corollary to being able to prove that certain music is superior to other music, is that certain musicmakers and their means of making music, are superior to others.


This may, at first glance, seem appalling to egalitarians, cultural relativists or relativists in general, but hopefully I can convince you that it is not. In fact, it is obvious. If all were equal, then you could walk into a record store blindfolded, pick however many albums you wanted and leave, and you would be just as happy as when you scan through the store, with all your senses unabated, and carefully select records you desire. If all were equal then Neurosis would be just as good as Nickelback, Cardi B would be just as good as Lady Gaga, Cannibal Corpse would be just as good as Six Feet Under, Queen just as good as Grandfunk Railroad, Minor Threat would be just as good as Simple Plan, Frank Sinatra just as good as Joey Bishop, Jermaine Jackson just as good as Michael Jackson, Snow just as good as Tupac, Tom Waits would be just as good as Billy Joel, or John Coltrane would be just as good as that band Train. If all were equal in music you could throw a tennis ball at a high school marching band, and no matter who it hit, that person would be just as good at writing a song as Miles Davis.


Notice that I didn't show preference above, though one might be able to infer that I had certain bands or songwriters whom I thought to be superior in each of my comparisons, but it doesn't matter. If you think Nickelback is superior to Queen, or Joey Bishop superior than Frank Sinatra (Bishop didn't even think so) then you still acknowledge the inequality of talent, artistry, and/or musicianship between competing artists. In fact this discrepancy goes further than just artist by artist juxtapositions, it even is seen when one just looks at the work of a single artist or band. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." A musician, a composer, songwriter what have you, has some music better than other music. We talk of bands having records not as good as previous ones, “the best stuff is the earlier albums,” or maybe the opposite where we would say something in the nature of, “the band didn’t hit its stride until album X.” And even when we delve further, we talk of certain songs on otherwise immaculate albums being better than others, or sections in orchestral work being superior than others within the same composition, such as the outro to Layla, by Derek and the Dominos, being better than the beginning, or the “Ode to Joy” section of the fourth movement in the Beethoven’s 9th Symphony being that which is the soundtrack to human spirit, while everything else (to the Philistine) seems lackluster. Not only is talent not endowed equally among humanity, it isn’t even endowed equally over time within those who have it in the first place; otherwise Meet the Beatles would be comparable in quality as Sgt. Pepper, Cannibal Corpse with Chris Barnes would be just as good as Cannibal Corpse with Corpsegrinder, and everything before the Black album would be equivalent in excellence as everything after The Black Album. The economist and political thinker Thomas Sowell once said, “Nobody is equal to anybody. Not even the same man is equall to himself on different days.”


Do not fret though, dear reader, nor become melancholy or feel defeated. The amazing artists, bands, and singers who wrote the songs that have soundtracked your life through the heights of your joy and the pits of your sorrow, are not responsible for their gifted talent, no more as they are responsible for their height, or the color of their grandparent’s eyes. Neither you or anyone else is responsible for the melodies, harmonies, or rhythms that somehow emerge in your consciousness, just as you are not responsible for the melodies, harmonies and rhythms that never came. Which, no doubt, in their void, consists of riffs heavier than Iron Man, sonatas sadder than Moonlight, and melodies more memorable than anything Tchaikovsky ever wrote. Yet, what you are responsible for and are in control of is what you do with those melodies, harmonies and rhythms in a song once they are revealed to you. And that is songwriting, which can be inferred, taught, practiced and/or understood through experience.


Black Sabbath guitarist, Tony Iommi once said, “However great you are, you’re only as good as your song is.” We should not feel awful about the inequity of music composition, because the results, (the song, the sonata, the symphony) means more to humanity than the songwriter, just as a moral imperative is more valuable to the well-being of humanity than the individual who first issued it. This isn’t to say that there is one good kind of music, and therefore one good way of writing music, which can be determined by science. Instead, we can think of objectivity within musical composition the same way Sam Harris writes about moral values in his book, The Moral Landscape, where there isn’t one good moral system, but a landscape of moral peaks and valleys, with greater or lesser heights and depths:


Well think of how we talk about food: I would never be tempted to argue to you that there must be one right food to eat. There is clearly a range of materials that constitute healthy food. But there's nevertheless a clear distinction between food and poison. The fact that there are many right answers to the question, "What is food?" does not tempt us to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition.”


What you should do with melodies in order to create a great song that is better than 95% of all other music, varies, and has qualitative peaks and Nickelbackian depths. Yet, there is no question that some of those variations and tactics in songwriting is musically equivalent to the rock band Poison.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

#YesAllCops Are Bad: Treatise on the Innate Immorality of the Police

#YesAllCops Are Bad:
Treatise on the Innate Immorality of the Police
By Thomas Calandra


#YesAllCops

THE “WAR ON COPS” LORE

When you read, watch, click on, and be succumbed by as much news as one open, data-enveloping  mind does on a daily basis from the multitude of outlets, angles, spins and political leanings in the current epoch of information,(for the only way to get true unbiased news is to be entranced to a point of physical exhaustion by every thesis of every moment of the news cycle, from every member of the self-anointed intelligentsia, to each reactive diatribe from pundits with over-moralized middle class “common sense” ) you will come to see how the incidences involving Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Eric Harris, Phillip White, Ruman Brisbon, Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Keith Lamont Scott and Alton Sterling are not unique, along with the near thousand people unjustifiably killed by the police in 2014, and 1,192 unjustified killings in 2015 (574 were minorities, 511 were white, and 107 were undetermined).

Unfortunately for the hawkish fear-dealers of authoritarians - frightening center-right cul-de-sac dwellers with the decline of societal maintenance – the “War on Cops” is an asinine and vapid mythos.

The truth is that under the years Obama has been in office, there has been no safer era for a police officer to exist; serving and protecting the public with the least likely chance of being gunned down. Far to many meme-laced, emotion-sodden arguments make the horrendous mistake of giving credit or blame for long term, sweeping social and economic transmutations occurring in society, such as crime rates, stock booms, unemployment fluctuations, private sector job creation, STD incidence, Financial collapses, Great Recessions, and the well-being of the economy as a whole - all of which involves unforseen, unpredictable decisions and actions of dynamic, diversely different actors with  antagonistly contrastive intentions, and dissimilar, divergent, unalike, mismatched, but uniquely idiosyncratic and important abilities and aspirations that vary qualitatively and quantitatively to such an extent, as to be unanalyzable due to the chaotic wilderness of previous unconscious causes of previous non-statisticized, temporal inhabitants – on whatever President happened to be in office at the time; as if the statist either believed the commander and chief was this omniscient, omnipresent, and (abhorrent to think) omnipotent guardian, or ( even more grim, unendurable, and ultimately more serious) wished them to be.

However, the following data just happens to be structured to display the average number of police officers killed on duty per year for the last five Presidents: For the Reagan era, an average of 101 cops were killed per year; for Bush forty one, an average of 90; for Clinton, 81; for Bush forty three, 72; and for Obama, 62. To be more specific with the data, and to hone in on the more recent “War on Cops” years, 67 cops were killed on duty in 2007, 59 were killed in 2010, 68 in 2011, 47 killed in 2014, 62 in 2015, and at the moment, 126 in 2016. This current swelling in police deaths for 2014 to 2015, and then a drastic incline in 2016, gives the sense that cops are under attack and blue blood is swelling as the law and order of the country overhears it’s own death rattle, and enters decivilization.

Absolute numbers however, though better than no numbers, can obfuscate the reality one is trying to decipher with statistical analysis. The use of absolute numbers as examples of data in public discourse, nine times out of ten, are being used by a fearpusher who wants the weak theories of their pre-confirmed minds made valid for policy enactment, instead of being statistically firm. The human brain has an comfortable ability counting oranges; they see a pile of ten sitting next to a pile of twelve, and after a few moments of counting and ruminating, can infer that one pile has more oranges than the other. The time this task takes can be split in two if, instead of twelve, the second pile has one hundred oranges; The primate mind doesn’t even need to count; the truth is right there in front of their face. The zealot, yearning for their belief's substantiation, will attain and praise the higher absolute numbers as the final breath of truth, and will be self-verified that the United States is a bastion of depravity.

But there are more people living in California than Equador, (38 million to 15 million, respectively) so any statistical comparison of the two entities will involve having to adjust that information to population, because there are going to be more of everything in California than Equador, from murder to engineers to hamburgers.


So far we have shown that the number of police officers killed on duty has been falling not only since Reaganomics, but since Nixon, and even more so, since prohibition.


 But we would expect to see the numbers of cops killed on duty to increase by year if the number of officers in general were to increase annually. Same goes for the evident decrease in cops being murdered if the number of police serving and protecting steadily declined.

The latter is true in general for the past two decades, for the exception of the last few years of the 20th century, and again just recently but to a lesser degree; imagine a lopsided U, with the left side longer than the right.

In 1997 there were 1.113 million police officers on duty in America, in 2000, that number rose to 1.176 million, then again in 2002 to 1.202 million. However, just two years later that number was cut by half to just 664,000, stayed the same in 2006, but than rose slightly to 808,000 in 2008, dropped to 745,000 in 2011, but then for 2013 and 2014 the number of police officers rose to and has been hovering around 900,000. This lopsided U should be a downward slope if the presidential police murder averages simply reflected the parallel decrease of officers in existence. But it’s not. Why?

Well, first, your ears should have pricked up because of my usage of absolute numbers when concerning the annual cop population. The statistics we should analyze are on duty cops in proportion to the general population. As a result, we will get the number of police on duty per 100,000 population. Of course we all know that the United States population has been increasing over the years: in 1997 in was 272.65 million, in 2006, it was 298 million, and currently it is a little more than 321 million. Bare this in mind when we learn that the population of on duty police officers proportional to the U.S. population in 2000 was 416 cops per 100,000 U.S. Population, 226 per 100,000 in 2004, 220 in 2007, 262 in 2010, 283 in 2014, and 278 in 2016. Here we  see an immense decline in the number of police officers serving and protecting 100,000 people, even though the totals of police officers serving the population took a lopsided U shape. Now we can factor in the data of cops killed on duty proportional to the general population per 100,000. If the war on cops was increasing, we would see the ratio increase with the general population, with a boom from 2013/2014 to the present. In 2000 it was .028 cops killed per 100,000 US population, .031 in 2002, .030 in 2004, .022 in 2007, .019 in 2010 and 2013, .014 in 2014, back to .019 in 2014, and .039 in 2016.

The last year’s surge was more of a last sigh; returning to the Bush forty three epoch than some contemporary policide Holocops.

The slight uptick in 2016 of police deaths could be that the cops on duty to population ratio increased; though only slightly, from the 220s of the Bush years to the 280s of the most recent Obama years.

STARVING COPS


Forget about corrupt cops, or jerk cops, or power hungry cops, or even the racist psychopathic ones who use the uniform for their sick delusions; take the straight arrow cops, the “by the book,” serve and protect cops, who very well could be the majority: the good cops. Their job is to serve and protect the community, and to enforce the laws that the public legislative has made with the power back by the community who votes. However,  the police are also a public enterprise paid by the usurpation of taxes. The community needs the police and they pay the taxes to afford this security. For communities that need more police than others, say Detroit, they spend more money on police than say, communities like Ipswich, Massachusetts. There is no reason for Ipswich to pay as much as Detroit for police, just as it is as equally ridiculous for Detroit to pay as much as Ipswich does for police. But what happens when a community that normally has crime rates to that of Detroit starts to slowly come to have crime rates of Ipswich? For the people of the Detroitish community, this would be a very good thing; human suffering would be diminished some: Less murder, Less rape, Less assault.  Not only that decline of criminality, but the tax money that was collected to fight this crime could now be redirected to other public services. This emancipation from a gangland and future investment is good news for everyone except for the cop, because the cop is getting fired. The police enforce the laws and bring criminals to justice, but with less crimes being committed, there will be less need for so many police officers. Therefore, in a literal sense, the police depend on the immorality of the community in order to have a job and economic security. Not in the black and white, racist structure of America sense of systematic that Sociologists say (and depend on; for without racism, sexism, classicism, and homophobia existing in our world, they would be out of a job and possibly in jail) but in the banal, coggish  sense of systematic, which depends on immorality in order to pay for the existence the system. As James Madison wrote,  "if men were angels no government would be necessary." The less quoted second part to Madison’s edict is, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” What would the social reformer do for money if society was perfected? If the system was no longer racist, sexist or classist, how would those who make money by writing books, giving lectures, and going on 24 hour media outlets to inform us, the un-Harvarded vulgar, why the system is so? How are we to pay these hyper-tenured morality mavens’ rent after the riddle of human struggle has been solved by listening to them?

So what if it is true that police depend on crime to keep their jobs, and prison guards depend on criminals going to jail for a paycheck? This doesn’t mean we don't need them. Crime isn't going away any time soon, right? Someone might say and expect that a reduction in police presence would cause crime to shoot up.  Perhaps, but only if it is true that the sole reason crime is committed is because no police are around to catch the immoralists, which of course isn't necessarily true, nor factually true at all, just as it isn’t true that the only reason people don’t do heroin is because it is illegal. Heroin is still illegal and more and more people are injecting themselves with it and dying from it despite its illegality.

Yet, over time, crime has decreased immensely, regardless of the fact that so has the police presence in the nation, both in absolute terms and in relation to the American populace.
   http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm.     








All forms of violent crime is reduced from just 20 years ago. Same with nonviolent crime:  Murder, down; Rape down; Assault down; Kidnapping down; Theft down; Even Hate crimes are down despite what your news feed and social science professor tell you.

So what are the police institutions to do with this “good” news of an enlarging population  voided from inexistence - entering the world de-immorilized somehow - unconsciously and unpermittedly designing a copless cosmos? What is the good cop to do after spending all that money on a criminology degree from college, a year of training at the academy, and however many years they have spent on the force, when the gentle officer’s superiors inform them that “cutbacks might have to be made,” due to unfortunate set of circumstances of the public unknowingly refusing to commit enough crimes to justify a paycheck? What are that cop's superiors to do when they themselves are told that they -the Brass- will have to take pay cuts, because the state is no longer willing to dole out tax dollars to a public service that isn't needed as much anymore?

The answer is that out of self interest, (the only reason anyone does anything) the police - no matter their morals or individual character, their goodness and do-gooder-ness - will either invent problems that require them to act, or see problems that are not there, in order to have a reason to be around to collect a pay check: They charge more for parking violations, probable cause will expand because they need to increase their probability of finding a crime, and Minor nonviolent drug offenses are now major ones. Like being arrested for driving on caffeine. Google it.



The police need you to give them an excuse to pull you over, to search you,  to mess up.
This is why five of them are there to arrest you for selling loose cigarettes, selling music on the street, or giving food to homeless people. Their livelihood is dependent on you harming your neighbor, burning churches, or worse, touching them; and every moment of your acriminal cop-starving existence that you don’t, is a checkmark against the suffering police on the balance sheet, and one more mark closer to a pink slip. So in a country where crime is decreasing, especially major violent crime, crimes like traffic violations and drug use, become seen as extra hostile and more sought after to the justice system, because that system needs such violations in order to maintain its existence. This goes for cops, but it also pertains to Correction officers, judges, and prosecutorial lawyers. They all depend on and look to seek out sin in order to feed themselves. Combine that atrocious system with the innate flaws and imperfections of human nature, and you have a magnificent algorithm for producing unnecessary harm.


Many #bluelivesmatter vocalists or “War on Cops” prophets decree that “its just a few bad seeds; most cops are good who do good for the community.” Some say that the police should be seen with a different pair of moral lenses, much like all public service officials are seen with second shadow of sacredness; as if being a comp controller is morally equal or functionally useful as a firefighter. This exceptionalism mentally, sometimes spiritually, trusted onto the job of the officers and thus the officers themselves, is the kind of single counter argument that is seen with flag burning as an exception to free speech, social security as an exception to budget cuts, or guns as an exception to most American's willingness to hand them over after any crestfallen tragedy. This final exception enrages American liberals who can not see the importance of guns to those whom the liberal view as dissolutioned denizens living in the middle earth of America: the giant swaths of land that to the New York liberal and the Los Angeles Democrat is one giant Texas, with North Carolina, Minnesota, and Alaska, as it’s major cities.

But, whatever your political allegiance, if you fail to begin your arguments for gun control with the immediate discussion of disarming the police, then you are either at best not a serious person for whom we should all ignore, or else a statist whose position is that private, self-purchased guns need to be confiscated when too assault-ish, and controlled a nd manufactured from the start to be barely deadly for the general public, but  the guns of Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon, Kenneth Boss, Paul Headley, Michael Carey, Marc Cooper, Gescard Isnora, Michael Olive, Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno, Rolando Solano, Darren Wilson, and Daniel Holtzclaw; Because “they were trained and passed a test."

Don't be scared. That's what Google is for.

But the difference between gun owners and cops is that gun owners are people, (some good, some bad, some insane, some sane, some responsible, some madness on stilts) and police officers are a job. An occupation which inevitably forces them to do wrong, and puts them in situations where they can, as detective Rust Coyle informs us, “hurt people with impunity.” And despite the individual cop’s morals, dispositions and level of insanity, they still require the public to eat one another for simple job security. Steven Weinberg said of religion, "In a world without religion, good people will do good things, and evil people will do evil things. But if you want good people to do evil things, that takes religion." The same thing goes for the state, and putting on a police uniform.


Motives don't matter. Hence the cop problem. If they did, then the "some cops are good" argument would have merit. The motives of the preacher standing on the street corner yelling at you that you are going to hell unless you change, to him is the same motive as him pushing you out of the way of a runaway bus: to him, he is saving your life; he is saving your soul from eternal torment. Submit to Christ on the rack, and your soul will be in ecstasy forever. The motives of the racker are purest. The engineer of the Judas cradle was be the kindest man of antiquity.

Yet, continuously, the push back comes in the forms of personalized anecdotal examples or worse, experiences, declarations of relationships and familia ties with cops (thus making the rebuttaller mistake their emotions with being epistemologically sound on the topic) or sharing articles about cops pulling over to play a night game of basketball with some urban youths, thus firebombing the notion that cops are racist juggernauts hunting black people, and leaving #blacklivesmatter to supposedly weep in their sordid wrongness.

These terse, subjective, and poorly thought out counters purely encapsulate what cognitive psychologists call the “narrative bias”: where the more detailed narrative given increases the probability in the mind of its likelihood of happening. Of course it isn't more probable, nor does it even come close to mildly infrequent. News worthy stories are rare by definition. But it is not a cops job to call for backup to have a pickup game with a group of teenagers. If one saw this magic moment walking home one night, anyone’s first impulse would not, nor should not be a heart warming Michael-Bay-ian gush of emotionality, but should be a conscious state of pragmatism and moral utility, and to ask oneself, “why aren't those cops doing their jobs?” Somewhere on a college campus a girl is getting raped -  rape, which  happens more often than homicide by a factor of ten - and this narrative of cops and kids having a basketball game is supposed to make us feel as though cops' motives mean something? Even this absurd after-school narrative displays the immensity of the cop problem, and how even with immortality still permeating society in some degree, the police are impotent in helping us.

Sadly the dismal coin has two sides.

WOLVES DRAPED IN ARMY FLESH
 
Capitalism is the great engine of turning “luxury into necessity,” wrote the Nobel winning Austrian economist Ludvig von Mises. For finding ways of making what could only be affordable to the Kardashianish echelon  to be attainable to the commoners. This went for automobiles,  computers and cell phones,  and it will soon be for 3D printers, biomechanical anatomy and private travel in space. The unfortunate corollary is that this also goes the same for M16s, armored tanks and SWAT teams.

What use to be affordable only to the NYPD, the LAPD, and the Chicago police departments, can now be gotten by the police departments of Ipswich,  Massachusetts and Ferguson,  Missouri. Of course, like a ten year old boy with a new water gun, or a MR I machine for research lab, or a new bureaucracy for a government, one feels the need to use the toy even when they don't have to. Because of this, Swat team raids have gone from 5 per year in the years when crime was high to thousands of raids currently when crime is at an all time low. If one so desires a perfect statement of these implications, they need to read the book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, by Radley Balko. This militarization of the police is due from the US Department of Defense selling off its surplus of equipment from the past two administrations overestimate of needed power in Iraq and Afghanistan - right after their desertion in 2011 and 2014, respectively – to state and local police departments for prices just above cost, and sometimes below. The new cop is draped in army flesh.


With thousands more SWAT raids occurring with hundreds more departments around the country, this could account for an increase in cops killed on duty, because raids are dangerous and they involve more cops; which makes more likely a cop is going to be harmed, even if the overall number of cops in existence has been cut in half since the Clinton administration. However, cops deaths are in decline along with their employment. Yet, this also could explain the increased number of unjustified killings by police in recent years, because SWAT team raids are dangerous for whose home is being raised, and are more likely to end in macabre. The unjustifiable portion comes to view with the knowledge we have of crime in free fall: more raids are happening in a country on innocent people to which we have statistical evidence to prove is true. If departments are having to justify using this newly attained hardware, a small number of cops could still do a lot of damage by assuming that this anti-insurgent garb they adorn is a reflection of its urgency in a demoralized society. Or maybe the police who are told to routinely stop black males now have m-16s. Maybe they are bored and have three units surround every pulled over car, so the driver appears to be in Nuremberg after reaching for their license and registration. Or maybe cops don’t need black, Kevlar, faceless face shields.


Finally, the subject of police brutality outrage, and the anti-militia cop sentiment suffusing the public discourse is a unique quandary, because the topic is a very politically unifying issue. For some reason it is an issue that has apolitically abnormal playdates: The small government conservatives who are afraid of a national police force are on the same side as the liberal minded factions who view police brutality under more sociological lenses. Perhaps they have different theories of causality, but none the less they share a foe within their otherwise un-unifiable ideologies.  But with crime rates going down, and the last breath of the war on drugs starting to leave lungs of the polis, (along with the dying statist elders who started it) and this odd bipartisan multilateral action beginning to take head against the institution of cops (good or bad), are we perhaps going to witness an unconscious materialization, or communal organization of a liberated society where the police not only be not necessary, but not wanted even if they are needed?

With crime submerging into the dark wilderness of the past, the very nature of policing becomes excessive.