Ask Lemmygrad

Honestly, surveillance is needed until a society built on trust can be developed. Think of China, in 1 or 2 generations they probably can do away with the surveillance infrastructure since they have already developed a society built on trust.

If it was global disarm the whole thing and just keep nuclear research as an energy thing, no one should have that much destructive power.

We should follow the Sankara line, once the revolution is complete, non-violence. Otherwise why did we fight? To put on the boot?

Maybe im stupid... idk what DoTP stands for. I suck at acronyms. Anyway as for surveillance in general. Personally i like the idea of zones. Like different geographical regions have different levels of surveillance and you get to pick which one you live in. Since its really a personal preference, and both approaches have ups and downs. Just like how some people prefer city life and some prefer rural life.

You can choose somewhere with cameras everywhere if you care more about safety, or some local areas could ban cameras in public entirely. Public policy isnt a one size fits all thing typically.