By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.
The discussion, and the topic, talks about a change that isn't so radical but that could improve things in society as a whole. But you're still talking in 'me' vs 'they' terms, and 'the criminals' and 'threats', mocking 'the unfortunate'...
This is not a conversation for the 'what about me?' mindset. The whole of this discussion(also to the other replies) you're only talking about yourself, I don't want to talk baseless opinions, the stuff I'm talking about is conceptual so you need to understand the concepts that precede the topic and don't seem to be there yet. I've made my argument at the first reply then tried expanding on it but you missed it
Society is made of many individuals, you can't disconnect a discussion about society from one about individuals, including "me". If you make high-level society-wide decisions that trample on individuals' rights, that also has society-wide implications (even if it's just a minority of individuals). What you're proposing is a tyranny of the majority, where the opinion of a single individual is discounted "for the greater good".
On the other hand, I believe society is just a big group of individuals, so "what about me?" does matter (in fact, it's maybe the most important question in all of society).
