I'll ask you to imagine this graphic: a simple drawing depicting a person/individual inside a perfect circle. That's your "space" when it comes to the concept of individual freedom. The freer you are to do what you want at any given moment, the larger the circle. Now, imagine the same drawing depicting other individuals and their personal freedom sphere positioned next to each other.
I think that most people would agree with the proposition that others should have the freedom to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm other people, or in a larger context, the community at large. Also, I think that may apply to harming the natural environment.
And I think that it may be safe to argue that when the actions of one individual harm others we start getting into the issue of criminality.
Here's how the concept of "crime" is described in Wikipedia:
The term crime does not, in modern times, have any simple and universally accepted definition, but one definition is that a crime, also called an offence or a criminal offence, is an act harmful not only to some individual, but also to the community or the state (a public wrong). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.The emphasis is mine
Now, let me attempt to build my argument/theory from this point... Let's say that we assign a quantity that summarizes the total capacity for crime within any given society, and let's say that that number is 100 (as in 100 percent). And let's assume that we take for a given that there will always be a certain amount of criminality present in any society.
Given these assumptions, I argue that one of the hallmarks of a truly free and democratic society is for the capacity and/or propensity to commit crimes to be evenly distributed, more or less. What do I mean by that? If we go back to the individual freedom sphere, as people get to the outer boundaries of theirs, there would be a possibility that some will cross the line. It is at that point that they become subject to sanctions if there is probable cause of a crime (in a free society).
I think this point is important. Let me list some examples of individual actions which I think may fall within the confines of personal freedom, including some which some people may find objectionable (again, pushing the envelop a bit): attending church; going to the movies; going abroad on vacation; going to a wedding; watching porn; smoking pot; using drugs; choosing to be monogamous in a relationship; a poly-amorous household (with consenting adults); taking part in an orgy; exchanging explicit photos of sexual content via different media between consenting adults; going fishing; taking a walk at the beach; making a purchase a Amazon.com; attending a protest rally; jogging; going to the gym; eating lots of greasy foods; being a vegetarian; being a Christian, and Buddhist, a Muslim, an Atheist, Agnostic, or Spiritual, or anything in between at any time you choose.
Let's say that there are potentially tens of thousands of actions we can take a free individuals (within the confines of our individual freedom sphere).
Now, I also argue that a very important aspect of freedom is the ability for an individual to maintain a certain amount of privacy. In fact, I argue that an erosion of privacy rights is an erosion of freedom itself.
And this is a good segue to introduce the issue of the kind of for-profit, corporate-controlled surveillance police state entrenching itself in our society as you read this.
I argue that in the final analysis, the surveillance police state serves the ruling class, and if so, what appears to be a total information awareness (about each citizen) capability serves as a repressive and oppressive tool against citizens.
The ruling class, with what appears to be a limitless capability to spread false narratives and propaganda, as well as to create the systemic conditions for social dysfunction, is able to manipulate the middle class into accepting a certain narrative about what it means to be safe and secured, and protected against crime.
The system is set up to engender certain dysfunction among vulnerable communities. Some of the structural issues include the widespread ownership of guns, discrimination against minorities, and the tearing down of the social safety net, neglect of the homeless and the mentally ill, among others.
Once the oppression reaches certain levels, crime may go up, you'll see mass shootings, etc., and then the corporate-controlled media amplifies the effects of those things in the minds of the middle class, which is then manipulated into acquiescing to increased methods of surveillance and control by the corporate state.
As this process takes place, the individual freedom sphere (circle) starts to close, little by little, conditioning people to conform.
Now, it is true that as the circle closes, the ability for any single individual to commit crimes also diminishes. And as it does, through additional regulations an laws, the process accelerates until it becomes almost impossible for average individuals to commit crimes. That's when you have the modern Surveillance Police State (we are fast moving towards that condition).
Now, let me get back to what I mentioned at the beginning regarding the total capacity of any given society to commit crimes... So if we still equate the total capacity to 100 (as in 100 percent), what happens to that displaced capacity? In other words, if larger and larger segments of society have less and less capability of committing crimes, where does transfers to?
I argue that it transfers to the ruling elite, in a manner that's not too dissimilar to the unprecedented levels of inequality of income (distribution).
And I argue that that explains what we've seen during the last decade or so, where the ruling elite has engaged in massively consequential crimes including war crimes, massive financial looting of the country's coffers, and a wholesale undermining of constitutional protections, all of it with appears to be total impunity.
And so, that's my "Unequal Distribution of Criminality Theory." The extreme income inequality has helped the ruling elite further rig the system in their favor, chipping away at our constitutional rights (which diminishes the circumference of our individual freedom sphere), which results in repression and oppression (and exploitation), all of it leading towards a Totalitarian (Corporate) Police State.