Yes with modern states, though I tend to question whether it was so much the single person rather than the powerful group of dipshits standing behind them. 😂😜

Some humans learned long ago that the spotlight is really a target on your back & the shadows are far more comfortable & powerful. 

 Saying up is down is retarded. Saying theft is good is retarded. 

 does a society currently exist, in which you would like to live? 

 Does the fact that rape occurs everywhere in the known world mean we should accept it? 

 I assume the answer is no then. Is your best explanation that it does not exist because everyone is a retard? 

 Almost everyone. Evil retards more accurately. 

 You're also relying in the bandwagon fallacy, btw. 

 I've only asked questions so far, so I'm curious how you reached that conclusion 

 It's pretty obvious what you're doing. If I'm wrong, get to the point. 

 I'm genuinely curious why you hold these views, I'm trying to make sense of them 

 Forcefully taking someone's property, even if every being in the universe supports your action, is objectively wrong. 

 I agree with you that states tend to corruption.

What you wrote above does not make sense to me however. If person A believes that object X is their property, while all other persons in the universe do not, what should be done? How is property decided? 

 You don't know what property is? 

 Do you have a definition? 

 Ownership means you are rightfully (i.e. not stolen) in possession of something, you control of its usage, and you are responsible for it.

Examples of things I own: 

My body, my time, my energy, and the products of those things.

Something I own is my property.

 

 Do you consider that land can be owned? Animals?  

 Like children, animals can be your wards, not your property.

You own what you build on the land, not the land itself. You also have the right to insist people not snoop around your property (i.e. trespass) threatening your security. 

 "Democracy is the will of the majority. So is rape." 

 I wonder if you're aware that everything you said here relies on a logical fallacy:

"An Appeal to the Masses fallacy, also known as Argumentum ad Populum, is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on the fact that many people believe or do something, rather than providing evidence or logical reasoning to support the claim." 

 I wonder if you're aware that naming obscure fallacies to someone who teaches rhetoric courses just makes you look like an amateur.

That is the sort of thing you analyze later, to train. Pulling out in a debate is cringe and makes you look like you're avoiding the other person's core argument that you obviously feel contempt for most people, so why should most people give a shit what you say?

Ethos >>> Logos 

 I'm still here, and don't understand why you think I've pulled out.

Appeal to the Masses is one of the most common fallacies - definitely not obscure. 

Saying you're a rhetoric teacher is an appeal to authority, another fallacy. I'm sad for your students.

Please make a point that isn't a fallacy. 

 1) That was an obvious typo.
2) I wasn't appealing to the masses, I was making a statistical argument about the spread of information for use in decision-making
3) All arguments you don't like are a fallacy.

I'm done talking to you. 

 You just said pulling out in a debate is cringe... 

 Apologies, I see now that was the typo. It wasn't obvious to me.

In any case, if you don't think fallacies are a problem, then it's for the best that we stop talking.