zlacker

> I don't want to live in a zero-crime world

That's about the worst, most inflammatory way possible to make your point. I agree with you 100%, but I am begging you to learn to frame your ideas better, in order to get people on your side. If you say that to any voters you will lose them instantly

>>cons0l+(OP)
Noted. But I'm trying to make people think about their cognitive dissonance.

I'm not a politician. I'm a systems thinker. If someone can't reason their way through what a "zero-crime world" actually entails, I doubt my other ideas will get through to them. Zero crime. Zero. No speeding, no IP infringement, no "just this one time". Zero.

That's also why I like asking "why stop there?" We've basically solved surveilance. It's an engineering problem. We have the capacity to track everyone (who does not make a VERY concerted effort to stealth) all the time, almost everywhere.

>>cons0l+(OP)
Didn't lose me, but point taken about gathering more support. How about: the costs of implementing a zero-crime world are far greater than the crime. Or attempting to trade freedom for safety will result in losing both.

>>cons0l+(OP)
Zero-crime means zero things that are banned ever becoming allowed. Things usually become allowed after they are illegal first, but people do them anyway, and then people wonder why we bother punishing them. Think of marijuana legalization. If nobody ever tried to illegally smoke weed, it would never be legalized because there would be no perceived benefit to doing so because it would be obvious that nobody wanted to do it.

>>artifa+hb
> the costs of implementing a zero-crime world are far greater than the crime.

Exactly, I like this. Thanks for helping me rephrase.