In Defense of a Double Standard
Some wrongs are worse than others
Most people rightly recoil at the idea of a double standard. In fact, it is downright American to believe that everyone should be subject to the same rules, to be judged on an equal basis.
But some things in this world are rightly asymmetric. While this is counterintuitive, it is nonetheless true. In particular, this is true when it comes to the standards we hold private citizens too as compared to the standards we hold the state. And this too is very much an American concept.
The nuance is lost on those who either fail to think critically enough or willfully blind themselves to the reasons for the distinction.
Throughout history, those in power had special privileges, greater abilities and leniencies than that extended to the common man. The American project turned this on its head. From its origins in British common law and the Magna Carta, the United States of America was founded on the idea that the state derives its powers from those granted by the governed. Power of the state is limited, and it is rightly held in check by rules and norms more strenuous than those extended to the people themselves.
Government power, as Washington himself said, is like fire—a dangerous master always in need of containment. I can order you out of my house for speech or ideas I don't like. Yet the government cannot throw you out of the country or harm you or restrain you simply because of your speech or ideas. Fundamentally this is because I own my house and it is my castle, but the government does not own the country. And a majority of the people do not own the country. That concept of ownership does not extend to the public domain.
Beyond its virtue in principle, this is for very good practical reasons. It acts as a dampener on power excess and abuse creating natural protection for those outside of power—so called, minority rights.
Minority rights go beyond just protecting those who happen to be fewer than the majority. They extend to the concept that while greater in raw number, the governed are less powerful than the government. So the minority/majority concept also includes the idea of the less powerful versus the more powerful. And those in power are definitionally the more powerful.
The pragmatic part that sadly so many so often forget is that they won't always be in power. Eventually both their enemies and those with simply oppositional interests will attain power.
Not just in a democracy but in any system of government, one should never create a government sword so powerful they wouldn't want their enemies to wield it. So yes, this creates a double standard. It is an inconsistency we crucially need to protect and defend.
This is why in the current debate taking place in the nation generally and the streets specifically requires the acceptance of a double standard. For example, when a police officer acts unethically by shooting a rubber bullet at a journalist, it is much more unethical behavior than a rioter setting fire to a Waymo vehicle.
There is no doubt about it that the rioter is wrong as are those looting, vandalizing, and burglarizing. These acts are unjustified and worthy of arrest and punishment. They are counter to the cause, even if they are conducted in the name of the cause—it is important to note that they probably are not actually part of the protest as these are generally bad actors who are taking an opportunity for mayhem or crime. Regardless, these acts should be condemned.
Yet, unethical behavior on the part of the state through its police powers are deplorable and worse by orders of magnitude. When someone in the name of the protest commits a crime even if those in the protest movement defend it, this does not undermine the rightfulness of the protest itself. But when the police commit a crime and that crime is defended by the state, it does undermine the rightfulness of the state.
The protests are demonstrations of the people in opposition to the actions of the state. The role of the government remains to protect the rights of the people even when the people are protesting. Any unlawful or unethical acts by either party are wrong. The reason unethical acts by the state would be worse is because it must be held to the higher standard. Society collapses when unethical activity is tolerated, and toleration of unethical activity by the state itself completely undermines society's foundations.
The violent and wrongful behavior of the government in executing it's deportation policies is what has created the protests. To be clear that does not justify violent and wrongful behavior by protesters. And also to be clear it would justify resistance, including violent resistance, to specific unethical acts. One cannot take the property of another or cause them bodily injury whether one is an independent person or a member of the state. Yet again we must introduce a double standard. And that will bring the concept full circle.
If I were to physically detain you and attempt to remove you against your will, you would have the right to defend yourself including using force. At some point in that altercation you rightfully can use deadly force in defense. In order to have a peaceful society, we give special police powers to the state with the trust that when it is exercising those powers, it will do so with the upmost respect for the rule of law and ethical behavior. Therefore, there must be a double standard. Otherwise, there is no reason to have a trust that those police powers are being executed ethically in that moment and in retrospect. Without that trust and without that double standard, the state actor deserves no special privilege. He becomes like all others and can be dealt with like all others.
Peaceful protests are an essential part of a well functioning society. Violent, harmful, and unethical behavior within a protest undermine the effectiveness of the protest, though they do not undermine the cause itself. Violent, harmful, and unethical behavior by the state, either as the precipitating cause of the protest or in resistance to protests, undermines the legitimacy of the state and the very fabric of society.