People say stuff that sounds smart to them, but it is often deceptive:

What has become more accepted is that everyone should have equality of opportunity, but that this does not necessarily lead to equality of outcome.

People only "prove" equality of opportunity through equality of outcome, and if they do not see that, will scapegoat "inequality."

Yes, individuals have differing levels of ability, for instance your intellectual capability seems below average because you're trying to justify melanin levels as the source of ability, which is a convenient way to understand the world if you're not too bright.

So your entire argument is about race. That's nice, but mine is not, and race is not skin color. Read Cavalli-Sforza and then branch out to more recent studies of genetic differences. Read Razib Khan.

We are not equal. Some rise above others because of greater abilities. Read The Bell Curve .

The dull corporate environment you bemoan was created by the egalitarians and their many rules, taxes, regulations, and other shifting of cost to business. While I sympathize with your view and share most of it, your methods are not going to work.

If society doesn't want this, they should pay more taxes and hire more police and spend on other schemes to provide more opportunities and education, etc.

We have to debug the problem and figure out where the actual issue lies. My analysis is that it is in two places: (1) a lack of consequences, which is more the courts than police, and (2) an outbreak of mental health problems which is typical to both Late Stage Democracy and genetically heterogenous societies.

Texas charges as a misdemeanor, but treats shoplifting the same as any other theft:

Theft as defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property.

An interesting study in unintended consequences:

Before Prop 47, police officers could perform arrests for shoplifting, but Prop 47 removed that authority, making it much easier to shoplift without any consequences. With the passage of Prop 47, police officers could no longer treat shoplifting as a burglary (as long as the dollar value of what was stolen remained below $950).

The practical impact of all this? All "arrests" for shoplifting had to now be carried out through a "citizen's arrest" which is a legal process in which a non-law enforcement person had to 1) witness the event and 2) show up in court to prosecute the event (or at least testify that the person in question committed the shoplifting). After Prop 47, police officers were not permitted to arrest on the grounds of shoplifting.

No amount of groceries is worth anyone's life.

I hear this kind of statement all the time, and it strikes me as yet another excuse for inaction. The issue here is not the cost of groceries, but whether you want to live in a society where theft is normal. If you are against theft, you will need to enforce that if it is challenged.

I am certain there are pedophiles online seeking to groom children, but forcing tech companies to demand ID from every user will backfire in the long term by ending internet anonymity and having a chilling effect on free speech.

What do you do about pedophilia? Identify the pedophiles and jail them for life. If they cannot groom kids on Roblox, they will go somewhere else, so the actual problem remains.

Texas does a lot of great stuff but also some really stupid stuff, like its law against abortion. If you criminalize it, those who want or need it will go elsewhere or do it themselves.

But if someone is publishing guides to harmful, illegal, or dangerous content, then they should cautioned then muted.

This rule leads to "harmful, illegal, or dangerous" being redefined to be whatever the herd feels threatened by.

Some say "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but I say that mass delusion is the corruption and only some give in to it.

Since the French Revolution, the West has steadily moved to this idea that everyone is equal in ability. They clutch pearls over racial differences, but their real concern is social class IQ differences. This is why The Bell Curve and The Blank Slate were so controversial despite stating scientifically-verified facts.

I am familiar with racial differences in genetics and ability, but think it less important to dwell on than the general argument against equality. Individuals are different in ability and inclinations. Trying to make us all "equal" has resulted in millions of deaths and the failure of whole societies in ancient times. It is better to accept that we are different than to fight reality.