It’s not just tolerance for crime. Some examples:
Well, I suppose it's about how you would define a crime. Is it on a morale scale? Obviously most people view murder as immoral. Some view hoarding of wealth, whilst others go homeless, as deeply immoral.
Laws are, inherently, a moral 'line in the sand', so to speak. So where do you draw that line? (Answer if you want, but it's really a rhetorical question).
- in the past 1 working parent could support a family and now both need to work and still struggle
- in the past that parent could support large numbers of children, now we struggle to support 2
- young people can’t afford a house where in the past they could
- our ever rising housing standards result in in affordability and people becoming homeless
- In the past we could leave school at 15 and have a successful career, now a university degree is no guarantee of a career.
'In the past' populations were smaller and had more of a sense of shared identity. This came with its own pitfalls. I won't go into them, as mentioning these tend to upset alot of people.
But how do you fix the issues that you've highlighted? No matter how you look at it, we're either going to end up with:
More personal freedom, but more likelyhood that the bigger fish will eat us.
Less personal freedom, but more likelyhood that we'll find the limitations of what we're allowed to do.
Life is a balancing act of reality vs. a plethora of ideal outcomes. The best we can achieve is a mildy content majority.
Society must progress but is it actually getting better for all? I think it is for MOST but the less capable - the lower educated, lower IQ, less resilient, different personalities, etc are spat out the bottom.
Society will inevitably progress, as certain as death and taxes. As for the working class? I agree on your point. However, as we are still in the backlash of COVID economics, I believe that it remains to be seen.
I think we'll see this when the world is a bit more stable again.
Bit of a long one, so kudos if you've made it this far.