A city offers to eliminate all violent crime by installing 24/7 AI surveillance on every street corner and public space.
0 votes worldwide
Not enough votes yet to show a result.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet β cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now βRead the expert analysisPolitical Philosophy
This pairs a maximum-strength benefit (total elimination of violent crime) with a maximum-strength cost (constant AI surveillance of all public space). The harms of violent crime are concentrated on a minority; the costs of surveillance fall evenly on everyone. The question is whether the trade is acceptable when the math seems to favor surveillance but the principle seems to favor refusal.
Why people split
One side treats the elimination of violent crime as so dramatic a benefit that any privacy cost it requires has to be reconsidered from scratch. The other treats the precedent of full public-space surveillance as locking in a relationship between citizen and state that's irreversible β the data will be used for things that aren't violent crime, eventually.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Was this dilemma interesting?
β‘ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link β they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
π± Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
Liberty and safety are both costs, not just benefits β every line drawn pays for the other. Once votes come in, this section will show how voters trade freedom for safety.
Worth asking yourself
- Whose freedom does this protect, and whose does it cost?
- Would you accept the rule if it applied to you?