That’s another one of those generalizations you can’t prove or even give evidence for that is based fully on faith that your audience will be as cynical as you are.
No, neither of us can prove vast sweeping generalizations about what’s going on in the minds of millions of anonymous strangers. But I didn’t make a claim along those lines, I simply poked fun of yours. If “you can’t prove I’m wrong” is the only thing you have in support of a position, that position sucks and you should get a new one.
You obviously disagree with me otherwise there wouldn’t be any opposition to what I’m saying which means you’re obviously trying to prove the direct opposite of my position for if you weren’t, what are you arguing?
I should get a new one? Humor me, what would that be?
The decline in physical violence can be ascertained only because of the modern digital surveillance state and in combination with modern CSI practices of law enforcement. No, surprise there when it is hard to have a fart in the wind without FEDS or government agencies knowing about it. Organized crime hasn’t been able to recover very well with the initiation of the internet era. Nonetheless, this same surveillance is an asset of the tyrannical state which is why the state is lawless because it controls and surveys all information now. The state’s reach towards anybody has become limitless.
It has made the tyranny of the state that much more bolder in feeling invulnerable to which it is in the age where anonymity has become a thing of the past. You trade in obvious straight forward violence for security of a state that uses subtle quieter forms of violence in a silent war against the populace. Do we live in a safer world? No, I tend to disagree with that assessment.
When the state becomes a tool with which to extort from the populace for sake of the wealthy, the state has crossed the line. Such is an ancient problem that, in the past, has only been overcome by serious rebellion of one type or another. But with today’s technology, such rebellion is not possible. The lust for godhood over humanity has come to fruition, not with the goal of compassion for humanity, but for no other purpose but to ensure the luxurious survival of the few. And when other homosapians are no longer required for that end, there will be no more other homosapians.
All wars, plagues, diseases, “terrorism”, and mass destruction are instigated with that one goal in mind. The temporary comforts afforded to the human cattle are provided for no other purpose and will be taken away (have been) when such services to the populace no longer serves the few.
That is crossing the line of just cause for support of a state, nation, religion, or any proposed authority. Better ways of living are available.
Just think for example of a company or any kind of corporation where you can find the same structure (mostly with the Pareto destribution of 20%/80% and a ruling 1%). Not wanting to value here, I am just saying that this is a structure that you can find very often.
You think it is a safer world? Whatever, I’m not interested in your pro establishment mouthpieces that has some sort of statistical bias saying otherwise.
We’re all going to find out real soon just how treacherous this world really is.
First of all, I noticed that many people in this thread seem to be implicitly advocating anarchy… That makes me happy! Mind if I ask what type of anarchy everyone prefers, individualist anarchy, or collectivist anarchy?