😂😂😂
I read the other day about how new houses are being constructed to include amenities that one would find out in the public. For those who can finance these places, they now come with mini-theater rooms, wine fridges along with the standard luxury fare of swimming pools and oversized yards.
I personally don’t know why one would need a theater room unless they are a moviephile. I reckon the living-room is where one would watch their movies and if they shut the lights and closed the drapes the experience would be close to the movies. Right?
Or am I just one of the unsophisticated unwashed commoners? lol.
Anyway, someone had an interesting take on the matter which had significant support as his comment had many “likes”. His comment was that these houses are built to satisfy a growing demand of families that no longer want to spend money and time, risk their personal safety and the safety of their children, in public places where social expectations and norms have been heavily eroded. A reply to the author states that we are becoming a low-trust society instead of a high-trust one where people felt comfortable going to public places. The reply further states that people had a reasonable expectation that their travel, their actual experience there, and any tangential social interaction they may have would not have the potential to veer catastrophically off-course. This expectation, they state, is no longer the case.
Anyone of us can make our own assumptions about how safe we think we are in the public. However, it’s important to note that there are some people that feel safe because they are at the peak of coalescing factors that produce an insulation they aren’t aware of. And for every one of these people that “feel safe” there are others that do not have the luxury of such insulations and have to make their own adaptations for safety.
But, as potentially floral as that concept could get, that’s not where I’m going with this. Besides, I wrote about it in this post.
Where I’m going with this is is that, at some point, if the author’s statement is true about the public and public safety, people are going to ask for more laws or more police officers. But in contrast, you will have others that will argue this is a step towards totalitarianism – a police state.
Both arguments have their merits. But I believe that there is a moderate solution to this and herein is what I would change about modern society.
Like I said, the fear of a police state is a real one. A government should – in a perfect world – be at the service of its people. We all know that this is a bit of a murky area at best. Having a police state would, not only confirm the fears of this argument but, would destroy parts of a free society’s dynamism. And while I commend the sentiment of these free-thinking radicals, it needs to by pointed out that totalitarianism – or its close cousin “tyranny” doesn’t necessarily have to come from the government.
The change I would make is to facilitate the intellectual jump that: Tyranny can, indeed, fester and develop from a group of people. And furthermore, this group – or groups – can exploit the loose tolerance that a first world nation provides, to slowly advance their influence in a silently aggressive way.
At the procedural level, having this as the goal can help citizens to see radical activist district attorneys (or in England, The Crown Prosecution Services) for the threat to public safety that they really are. It’s ok to seek “restorative justice” in certain cases but if this housing phenomena is true, first world prosecutors are failing their own offices. And the same goes for radical activist circuit judges. This would also be a good battle ground test to see if any of our RICO laws would apply.
More important, at the municipal level, becoming aware of this tyranny can help courts to recalibrate and clarify their position on assault cases in the public. In northeastern states, we have the “duty to retreat” from a threat, BUT only if it can be done in a safe manner. However, this assumes that our retreat from the threat concludes the threat. What if this threat continues through slander, harassment at our place of employment, property destruction, etc? What about the precipitating factors of the conflict? the initial behavior of the aggressor? their calculation of distance? Does the citizen have to simply give up and cede all personal assets? Their personal safety? It’s one thing if they aren’t bound to pay state and federal taxes, but it’s a different story when they have to contribute to the salaries of law enforcement officers. It sounds far-fetched to think about. However, even a cursory look at history highlights that this particular rule of engagement (and similar statutes) has cratered Black & Minority communities across the country for decades and still continues to do so. Additionally, this rule-set essentially created one of THE MOST DANGEROUS street gangs that operate in the country.
I have no idea how to conclude this post lol.
So I’ll just say it and be done; that’s what I would change about modern society.
That, and finding a way to raise median wages for the working class. But that….is for another post and another wordpress prompt.
Feel Free To Leave A Comment!