Crime will be the price that a free society pays.
We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
I think human nature or whatever you want to call it is always going to mean that some number of people don’t follow The Rules to some degree, and that achieving 100% perfect rule adherence should not necessarily be the one and only goal of society.
People generally go with the foggy model of what seem the most in accordance with values they lously acquired by observing there own neighborhood.
Surveillance societies have a lot more crime, it’s just carried out by a single set of uniformed groups.
I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-communities, electric fencing, metal bars around our doors and windows, hiring private security, etc to combat the crime that the wider society is tacitly tolerating. People want security, and we're willing to forego things such as "privacy" in return for that. Not all of us put "privacy" on a gigantic pedestal as some others do.
If a society is willing to give up their privacy then governments can be lazier because they'll be more aware of their direct threats, therefore they need less awareness of actual societal problems, which are indirect threats.
Like why isn't the debate here revolving around the suggestion that we need to have processes, and super-secure, open and cryptographically secure audit of all government actions so that government "privacy" violations are immediately caught and addressed? Instead, we're asking government to solve some arbitrary problem called "privacy" because we think it'll prevent potential government abuse in the future?
Do it right, and no liberty or privacy is lost for honest individuals. While petty thieves will lose liberty, of course.
Then we can address each one. Otherwise I'm just shooting in the dark and playing argument bingo.