the protectors of misery

States have it in their name to be static and the antithesis of change. They’re the protectors of order and, in that sense, neutral to the kind of order they protect. The goal is to keep things happening in predictable ways with procedures that sustain stability. Whether that stability is unjust doesn’t matter as that doesn’t factor into the State institution’s functioning. Modern states have the nice and handy capability of allowing their subjects to slightly modify the way things are done. This is expertly done in a way that is both exclusive and ineffective at substantial change because, and I’m repeating myself, the State is static and a protector of what is, not a maker of what could be. Frequently, people point out positive instances of states in which lots of positive changes happened such as Western Europe, Scandinavia and Turkey (the last one for different reasons than social safety nets). And while they’re right that these states changed the ruling conditions prior to their…