>To reiterate, the design of surveillance is population control,no more or less;
The biggest myth perpetrated by the US government is that they are in control of the country. That illusion must be protected at all costs. The government nibbles around the edges and catches a few criminals(<20%) but by and large the country is relatively safe internally not because of the police but because most citizens are good people.
So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people?
People aren't particularly good. Scourges like say bribery or spousal abuse are rife in much of the world, and commonplace among the populace. In places where they have been nearly eliminated, government has played an enormous role. Not because they catch all the bad guys, but because imposing and enforcing law creates social norms that affect the behavior of ordinary people. Someone in Pakistan isn't more likely to beat his wife than someone in the U.S. because he doesn't understand it's bad or because he isn't worried about getting caught. It's because the relative certainty of enforcement in the U.S. undergirds and sustains a social norm that makes wife beaters into pariahs.[1]
Moreover, murderers and the like aren't the biggest threat to society. What matters are organized groups exercising violence. A small armed group can terrorize a large population, as is demonstrated time and again in places like Pakistan or Iraq. To suppress such groups the government not only has to catch them, but make the retaliation so swift and inevitable that only the irrational would try to bypass the ordinary social and legal structures with force. And the government is very effective at doing this.
[1] This is, incidentally, why there are special laws against e.g. hate crimes, even though assault is already illegal. The generic social norm against assault isn't strong enough to protect a targeted group, and a new law can create a more powerful social norm to compensate.
This phenomenon is also evident in the discrimination context. People didn't just become better and less racist in the last 50 years of their own accord. Laws like the Civil Rights Act catalyzed the change by imposing new social norms. When discriminating in the workplace became illegal, people who discriminated became "bad people" which forced changes in behavior that have little to do with what percentage of people were caught.
"So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people?"
Look at the history of urban conflict -- it's virtually impossible even for a high-tech military actor like the USA to effectively police a dense urban area without incurring unacceptable civilian casualties that would further radicalize the population.
You can nuke a city, sure. That's easy. But policing a dense city of millions of people even with heavy surveillance and military force is damn hard.
If most people weren't basically good, we would indeed live in a lawless hellhole.
You have it backwards. They have unproductive economies because they're lawless and violent. You can see it in the evolution of societies like Singapore or India.
I suspect the comorbidity rate is nearly 100%. I suppose when I say "an unproductive economy causes violence," what I mean is that it's a better idea to spend resources bootstrapping a sustainable productive economy than just trying to stop violence.
I assume you mean to use Singapore as an example of where strict laws and reduced violence have had a positive effect on development? As opposed to India?
I'm not talking about strict laws, just the rule of law. The supremacy of the state over any challengers. In both Singapore and India, strong, effective government has enabled economic development. Vis-a-vis India, it's government isn't as effective as those in the West, but it's an interesting reference point, because India has been much more successful than neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. 100 years ago the wealth difference between the countries was nothing to speak of, but India has been more successful in developing its civil institutions and has been rewarded for that success economically.
>So are those countries that are lawless and violent that way because the citizens are just bad people?
I imagine they look out for people of their own tribe, but that kind of tribalism does not exist in the US. The point I rebutted was about population control. A good example is the federal governments inability to stop the legalization of pot. They absolutely oppose it but can do fuck all.
The U.S. isn't any less diverse than Syria or Iraq and the potential conflicts between the groups are no less serious. And at times this has resulted in violence. Ever watch Gangs of New York? So why aren't American Catholics fighting Protestants like Shi'ites fight Sunni? It's not because we're just better people on this side of the pond.
That, and there is comparatively little resource scarcity. The government could easily steer the country into the economic ground, resulting in widespread suffering and eventual complete social breakdown.
Just because the government as a whole can't build bridges or a health care web portal or do whatever else would demonstrate the sort of control you are implying, doesn't mean that specific actors within the triumvirate of the executive branch, legislative branch and media don't very much control the acceptable window of social and political discourse. That sort of control is no illusion.
Also, I think that what the sibling comment says about resource scarcity is certainly a more reasonable justification for why there is relatively little internal strife in the US compared to other countries. What makes "citizens" or all American residents any better people than the residents of any other country?
The biggest myth perpetrated by the US government is that they are in control of the country. That illusion must be protected at all costs. The government nibbles around the edges and catches a few criminals(<20%) but by and large the country is relatively safe internally not because of the police but because most citizens are good people.