[Serious] The revolution was successful! The old government is gone. You get to help write the new Constitution. What do you put into it?

pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 158 points –
326

Gender equality, education, access to medical care, etc. basically a slightly modified version of FDR’s proposed bill of rights.

The main issue I have with FDR's second bill of rights is that it does nothing to fix late stage capitalism. Generational wealth will continue to accrue and those without it will be punished by no fault of their own. Sure it will make poverty less common and less impactful but people will only have bargaining power in employment via unions while not enshrining unions with more protections.

I think you see the impact of that in a country like Sweden. One of the lowest income inequalities in the world, but also one of the highest wealth inequalities in the world.

The wealthy don't earn a wage to accrue wealth, they make money off having wealth. It's why whenever you ask a finance bro how to become wealthy and it's a three step program of have money, don't spend money, make money off having money.

Yeppppp, and when you ask them "well how do I get enough money for step 1?" they're just like "idk get a better job I guess? I had a trust fund lol", as if better jobs grow off trees.

Just get rid of the concept of corporations, funds, foundations, etc all the ways rich people have sheltered their assets from the state. Wealth may only be held by individuals plus a 100% death tax on wealth above some level. Maybe 10million, whatever.

How do you put education into the constitution?

Since they're talking about a bill of rights they likely mean the right to education. Probably includes not having paywalled higher education institutes?

Hey guys! It's ya boi Walter Wiggles comin at you with a brand new constitution. Don't forget to like comment and subscribe. We're doin a new constitution every week, so leave a comment and tell us what freedoms YOU want to see!

Shout out to my boy πŸ“’ πŸ“’ πŸ“’ A-A-ABRACADABRA HAM πŸ“’ πŸ“’ πŸ“’

Housing should be affordable, and never sold as an investment

Housing is a human right. Along with access to food, nutrition, healthcare and education.

Companies shall not own Residential Property under any circumstance.

Companies with Vacant Comercial Property beyond a certain time (1 year maybe?) after the last long term Lease (5 years?) have to prove an effort in filling the vacancy or face 20%(?) of the properties value as fine per year of vacancy.

That ought to fix the property market imo. Values debatable but general idea should help fix things.

You've just killed any ability to rent with that. Renting is very important as a lot of people do not want to overhead costs of fixing everything that breaks.

Good. Housing should never been an investment. HUD or The New Communist HUD that we are writing into the Constitution will own all non-private primary housing stock and will ensure that at least 10% more capacity then is needed exists in every metro area.

That's not what was originally written though. Also, 10% more capacity than is needed sounds very wasteful.

It's not because we have yearly growth, and housing needs elasticity for people to move in and move out over the years. Plus it's no where near as wasteful when you consider the AirBNBs that plague metro areas that are vacant greater then 50% of the time. Of course those will also be reclaimed by the New Communist HUD as well.

I think what OP was getting at was not housing being sold to make money down the line but housing being bought, then sat on until prices rise, then sold for more money. All while the property lays vacant.

Not sure though since I can't read minds.

In any case:

overhead costs of fixing everything that breaks

ah yes the act of renting suddenly makes those costs disappear, you know you'd have even less cost if you bought wherever you are living instead since now you don't have the overhead cost of paying the landlord? Renting being cheaper is a myth because most people rent apartments, not houses (At least where I live). If 10 people owned the apartments in the house they live in and shared the repair costs they would be significantly cheaper off than if those 10 people rented their apartments from a landlord.

I think what OP was getting at was not housing being sold to make money down the line but housing being bought, then sat on until prices rise, then sold for more money. All while the property lays vacant.

That makes sense. A lot of places fix that with a vacancy tax.

ah yes the act of renting suddenly makes those costs disappear, you know you’d have even less cost if you bought wherever you are living instead since now you don’t have the overhead cost of paying the landlord? Renting being cheaper is a myth because most people rent apartments, not houses (At least where I live). If 10 people owned the apartments in the house they live in and shared the repair costs they would be significantly cheaper off than if those 10 people rented their apartments from a landlord.

It's not a myth. I've literally done the calculations. I live in a 580,000-dollar house. I have an active standing offer to buy this house at 580k. I pay 2.8k for rent. The mortgage for me would be 3.1k to 4.3k a month. Plus repairs. Plus down payment if you pick the number closer to 3k. The reason the large corporation landlord can afford this house with repairs and rent it for that rate is because they don't pay a mortgage, they bought it outright.

So yes, renting can be cheaper than owning.

Unfortunately, some people think their way is the only way and won't open their minds to people wanting different ways to live (own, rent, etc).

There's nothing wrong with renting but some people demonize it for no reason.

Because renting adds an extra overhead to the equation in the form of the landlords cut, you'd be cheaper of owning the property and sharing the repair costs (assuming you live in an apartment complex)

I rent a house with the option to buy it. I've watched the owners spend at least 20,000 USD in 2 years on repairs. No thank you!

Now tell me, where do you think the owners got those 20k from to pay for the repairs? The goodness of their hearts? Or your rent? People seriously thinking renting is cheaper need some help, it's less of a hassle sure and if that's why you rent go ahead but if you rent because it's cheaper I suggest you retake first grade math classes because property upkeep + mortgage + rent overhead since owner wants to make money != property upkeep + mortgage. If you are renting you are paying extra, no two ways about it. Unless your credit score is crap you are likely also paying more than if you bought the place entirely on credit (this depends heavily on how the owner financed the place, if they paid out of pocket it might be a bit cheaper to rent whilst the hypothetical mortgage is being paid off).

Only reasons I can think of renting for is A) ease of living: if something breaks it's not your time spent fixing it. B) flexibility: you can move places faster than if you had to sell the place you're currently living in first

But cheaper? Yeah no, the math just doesn't work out on that one.

If you live in a place for 2 years and have to spend $18,000 on a mortgage and $20,000 on repairs, that's definitely more expensive than just paying $24,000 in rent. Not everyone has $20,000 just laying around to fix stuff. They'd rather spend $20,000 over 2 years going on vacation, eating out, or having fun.

since owner wants to make money

You mean, earning money from their job (managing the property). It's not free money, it's their income. Just like other people get a paycheck from a regular job, landlords are just self employed. Running your own business might mean not taking a lot of pay (or no pay) some years.

So the 18k for the mortgage just disappear when someone else owns the place? Do you even listen? Unless you're renting from a corporation (in which case the rent is not going to be cheaper anyway, they'll just make more profit) the landlord is paying that same mortgage (maybe only 17k since they have a longer history with the bank). You're not getting out of this cheaper. Any cost you might have with a house the landlord has as well, at best they get a better credit from the bank but overall the difference is so miniscule it doesn't balance out the cut they add for themselves onto the rent.

Regarding your second paragraph see my list of reasons why you might legitimately rent. If the saved time is worth it for you then that is absolutely valid but don't delude yourself into thinking it's cheaper.

So the 18k for the mortgage just disappear when someone else owns the place?

If it's at the beginning of the mortgage, most of that is interest because interest is front loaded.

What's your point here?

At the beginning of a mortgage you're really not gaining much equity if that's that your prior comment was about.

The point is that it doesn't matter if the landlord pays the mortgage or you pay it it is still there. And if the landlord pays it you can be damn certain it's gonna end up in your rent calculation.

And if the landlord pays it you can be damn certain it's gonna end up in your rent calculation.

Well obviously, they aren't going to work for free.

If you are renting you are paying extra, no two ways about it. Unless your credit score is crap you are likely also paying more than if you bought the place entirely on credit (this depends heavily on how the owner financed the place, if they paid out of pocket it might be a bit cheaper to rent whilst the hypothetical mortgage is being paid off).

My credit isn't crap and it's still far cheaper to rent than what my mortgage payment would be. I rent at 2.8k a month and my mortgage would be 4k a month. So I'd need a large downpayment to deal with it.

I suggest you retake first grade math classes because property upkeep + mortgage + rent overhead since owner wants to make money != property upkeep + mortgage.

Honestly, I suggest you assume people you are talking to know their own situation better than you. I've done the math and the reason the large corporation can afford it is because they buy the house outright and don't pay a mortgage on it. They own tons of properties and not every single one makes money. The one I am in probably doesn't make money and they are likely waiting for me to move out so they can cut their losses and recoup some of their portfolio.

Only reasons I can think of renting for is A) ease of living: if something breaks it’s not your time spent fixing it. B) flexibility: you can move places faster than if you had to sell the place you’re currently living in first

So here is a third one for you, it actually is cheaper if you do the math in a lot of situations, including average to low credit but even with perfect credit and a small 5% APR (which you realistically aren't getting a 5% APR currently, it's far more likely to get 7% but lets build in a huge benefit for the sake of argument) on a loan of 580,000 (the price for the house I rent), it's still 300 dollars a month more to own it. Plus repairs and upkeep. So tell me again how you've done all this math and are perfect about knowing every situation.

But cheaper? Yeah no, the math just doesn’t work out on that one.

Recommendation: Do the math with any mortgage calculator. The rent is 2800. Reasonable Mortgage is 3000 + repairs and maintenance.

Here's your error: you're assuming the mortgage will never be paid off. Which just isn't true.

not every single one makes money.

You know what corporations do with a property that doesn't make money? Either they find a way to kick out the current residents to raise rent. If that is not possible they sell. A corporation doesn't give a shit about you still living in the building before selling.

they buy the house outright and don’t pay a mortgage on it.

you very apparently have no idea how property development works. Those companies have at any point in time almost no cash on hand and while they might pay a good chunk of a building out of pocket credit is usually still the way they go. There are very few companies that don't need credit for daily operations, in property development that number is even smaller because their daily operations include paying for construction basically all the time. Even if they were paying out of pocket the difference would be interest, not some magical 33% as you suggest.

580,000 4k a month

Not sure what you are smoking but with a 25 year mortgage my calculator says that's ~2k a month (without interest). Now interest will add some to that but not 100%. Unless you are getting a loan from a meth dealer in a back alley. Without any upfront payment some random mortgage calculator spits out 2.4k per month on that property for me. We can talk about the math when you come back with numbers that add up. Going with the numbers of your closing sentence anyway here's some math for you: Rent: 2.8k / month House: 3k + 1k + 1k (1k repairs, 1k upkeep. Repair from earlier mentioned 20k/2years, upkeep from home owner annectodes around here estimated upwards)

25 years: Rent: 840k House: 1500

40 years (25 + 15): Rent: 1344k House: 1860k

50 years (25 + 25): Rent: 1680k House: 2100k

in which case yes, you are absolutely right. But that would also be the point at which I question how you arrive at a 4k or even just 3k 25 year mortgage for a ~600k property. To me that means either your bank is ripping you off or your credit history is so low the bank doesn't even think you can afford your next breakfast. That level of difference isn't even at a point where I can chalk it up to difference in interest rates. The number you gave me initially (4k) would be a 100% total interest rate. Again, I don't see how that works out.

If your mortgage numbers are correct then you are probably also correct in that the owner would be running a loss on the property (a steep one at that) assuming they are still paying a mortgage on it.

That it gets reworked every seven years.

A pretty good idea from Jefferson that was just maybe a bit of a mistake to leave out.

Every citizen has a right to food, water and adequate shelter.

Anything that makes you a captive market cannot be private or has to have a free public alternative.

Things like healthcare, transport, housing, water, energy, internet etc.

Equal rights.

Anything that makes you a captive market cannot be private or has to have a free public alternative.

If there is a private non-free alternative, it is inevitable that eventually a politician will be corrupted and opt for less public funding hoping to artificially make the private one much better, and then get their share of the profits.

Yeah it may be better to just not allow private enterprises in anything that is required.

Keep them to entertainment and the like.

Then they just cut funding anyway and use poor performance to argue for privatization. See: NHS

The legislative branch of the government should have representatives selected through sortition. It would solve a lot of problems.

This is a non-exhaustive list.

Healthy food, clean water, safety, clean air, top tier healthcare, communication, transportation, education, and housing are the basic rights which the state must ensure all of its people have.

No law or regulation shall compromise an individual's privacy, including their digital privacy rights. Personalised ads are illegal.

Source code of software must be published no later than 3 years after the release of any software or system.

Patents expire after 4 years at the latest with no evergreening allowed. Lifesaving drugs can't be patented.

Right to repair must be protected by the constitution. Schematics and replacement parts and board level components must be available for as long as the product is on the market + 10 years at BoM cost + logistics.

Non-commercial transformative works are protected.

The state must maintain, to the best of its ability, a top of the line rail network, with additional supplemental bus network as transitional period so that completely eliminates the need for personal automobiles in any town larger than 2000 residents.

No road in residential areas should allow higher than 30km/h driving speed, and 70km/h between cities. (To further encourage usage of public transit and cycling).

The state must maintain a top of the line high speed rail network that completely replaces the highway system, as well as completely replacing regional flights.

All public transit will be free to use, 100% funded by tax money.

Worker's union, on top of the regular protections, has the ability to freeze assets and accounts of the company to force negotiations.

Construction code must minimise the carbon footprint of the project by reducing emissions (not just relying on carbon buybacks).

Any military action must be compliant with international laws, failure to comply will result in emergency re-elections.

Any elected official is not allowed to own stocks or options in any company. Any elected official must retire before the age of 65. No elected official can stay in the same position for longer than 8 years.

Healthcare is 100% funded by the state, no residents shall pay a single penny for their own medical treatment.

Organ donation is opt out, not opt in.

Maximum legal salary for corporate executives must never exceed 5x the lowest salary at that company, and no more than 5x of the median income of that country.

If 1% of residents in any given jurisdiction sign a petition to fire any police officer from that jurisdiction, a referendum will decide.

Any agent of the state who abuses their power for personal gain will be charged with abuse of power and possibly treason.

Education from kindergarten to university is fully funded by the state. Trade schools will also be funded. Students with special needs must be accommodated by the state to the best of its ability.

In order to declare a war, a referendum must be passed with a supermajority of the entire voting population. Children above the age of 15 should also be allowed to vote, since if you start a war, it is possible that it will lead to a draft that will force them into combat when they reach the age of adulthood.

The death penalty is not allowed no matter the severity of the crime.

For profit prisons are illegal, all incarceration centers are owned and operated by the state. inmates' living conditions must be humane and allow them to maintain their safety, health, and dignity, with the primary goal is to rehabilitate convicts and reintegrate them back to society.

Whistleblower protection: anyone who comes to a possession of document, or any other evidence of wrong doing of the state, is allowed and encouraged to publish said evidence, and they will be constitutionally protected from any criminal charges, and against violence through a special agency.

Vehicles are taxed based on weight and emissions rating.

Any income higher than 500k per year (adjusted to inflation) gets a 95% tax (remember that this is a tax bracket, if you earn 600k, the first 500k will be taxed normally, and the extra 100k will be taxed at 95%). Deductable expenses for any item above $2000 must require more detailed documentation to include a description of how that item will be used.

Religious organizations must be taxed like any other for-profit organization.

All forests are protected and the state shall ensure its biodiversity is maintained and managed appropriately.

Coal is completely banned for energy production. Natural gas is taxed so heavily that only industries that absolutely must use it will. (To force the use of green energy solutions like nuclear, solar, and others...)

All publicly funded research publications must not have any paywall or DRM.

I think it's pretty exhaustive lol

Haha, I guess it is pretty long, but there are so many things that really need to be added, like protection for minorities like LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, religions... I kinda forgot to write that because I thought it was obvious to write it in. Also protection for bodily autonomy including abortion rights. I feel these are really important, but I forgot because I was tired, and there are more I'm forgetting.

Oh man I would definitely vote for that. That's an impressive list and I agree with everything! I'll save this comment for the future

Sadly I have the charisma of a dying turtle, and suck at debates, so convincing people in person is hard.

Don't worry. This is all a utopia nowadays so we don't have many options haha

All software that's paid for by taxpayers must be open-source, or at least source-visible. I know some European countries are heading this direction (or may already enforce this) which is great.

Actually, let's do that for everything that's funded by taxpayers. If I'm paying for something through taxes, I should be able to see more detailed information about where the money is going and the output of it.

You have free reign here why not just make all software have to be open source?

Although I tend to agree with that, there are softwares that should not be open source by nature. For example, an open source antivirus would not be effective.

All income over $10m per year is taxed at 100%. Foreign and domestic put together.

I get where you are going but it would make more sense to be based on a percentage above a living wage or something like that. In 100 years 10 million will be worth a lot less than today.

Maybe start it at 10m and index link it to the average wage thereafter. Make it in their own interests to boost everyone’s wages.

Make sure it's the median wage rather than the mean wage, otherwise they can just hugely increase wages for a few outliers.

That would get rid of inflation really fast as billionaires try to figure out how to deflate the currency.

I don't think the billionaires survived the initial premise of this thought experiment.

Okay, I'll start with a basic one. Equal rights for everyone, regardless of beliefs, physical traits, emotional traits, sexuality or financial situation - will probably need amendments since it's hard to come up with every possible circumstance.

regardless of beliefs,

What about Nazis?

They should still have the same rights as everyone else, and that shouldn't be a controversial statement. But of course, as soon as they break the law, they should be punished. If they never break the law, they should have every right to be shitty people in public.

The government choosing what is morally right and what is morally wrong and punishing people for holding morally "wrong" beliefs is exactly what led us to be in the situation we are in right now in the US and China. Not everyone will ever agree on what is right or wrong. Make laws based on actions, not beliefs, and if anyone commits those actions, punish them for that.

I mean I don't cherish the idea of giving a Nazi anything, but I still think they deserve equal rights, but it probably also depend on what you mean by rights. My interpretation would be that this include every service provided by the government. Handling groups like Nazis I think would fall under hate speech if they use their opinions to antagonize or incite violence towards other people.

They exist in countries with coalition governments (e.g. Germany) and yes the Nazi parties are popular, but they do not hold a majority and likely never will, so their power is reined in (just as with other parties).

If the party didn't exist, then those fascists would just join other mainstream parties and sow division within them (see: UK and US politics). Fascist pigs should have a voice, and be represented, like anyone else. Their voice just shouldn't drown out anyone else, and that is the case in a government that has proportional representation as one of its founding tenets.

Equal rights yes but please remove the "lift crazy religious beliefs/rules to a right" thing some people interpret into "freedom of religion", especially as it affects children of those people or the ability of those people to discriminate in direct contradiction to the equal rights clause itself.

πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

Okay, so I have put a LOT of thought into this question, and after reading everyone else's opinions on the matter, I thought I'd share mine. You guys have a lot of good ideas, some of which I didn't think about before. I hope my ideas can inspire similar contemplation.

Okay, here goes:


IN THE NAME OF liberty, truth, justice, cupcakes, porn, and all that is good in this life, We The People of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic hereby establish and ordain this new Constitution, with blackjack and hookers.

Based on the millennia of suffering of ourselves and our ancestors, We The People hereby establish and remind the reader that ALL PEOPLE HAVE BASIC NATURAL RIGHTS that either the government or any organization of people cannot violate, or must enable and adhere to, respectively. We lay out this Constitution to provide a Framework from which the government, organizations and the people can sort out what and how that should be done, and what ways most benefit the people.

We also hereby establish in the name of harmony, justice, truth and goodness that along with RESPECTING AND ENABLING NATURAL RIGHTS, government, organizations and the people must also adhere to certain responsibilities to ensure the best and most positive outcome for the people and to protect the natural rights of everyone involved.


NATURAL RIGHTS

We the People hereby establish this list of Natural Rights we recognize from the start.

We first stress that this list is not exhaustive, and that Natural Rights are not limited to only the contents of the list. As the future plays out, the people will experience situations new to humanity and therefore the Natural Rights of which the people expect the government and organizations to enforce and protect will, by its nature, expand. New amendments to this list shall be done in accordance with the instructions of this here Constitution.

RIGHT #1: THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE'S PHYSICAL NEEDS MET

The most basic of all Natural Rights is the right to have one's physical needs met by the government and organizations. These rights include, but not limited to:

  • The right to steady and fair access to nutritious and delicious food, and clean, safe, drinkable water.

  • The right to a safe, clean, pestilence-free, and sturdy domicile that will comfortably meet a person's need for shelter, food, water, electricity and homeostasis.

  • The right to access to electricity, including but not limited to power generation for their shelter.

  • The right to access and use all publicly available or published information that has ever been created up to this point and in the future.

  • The right to access and use communications platforms, including but not limited to mail and any electronic communications systems developed before or since, especially Internet and interplanetary/interstellar communications systems.

  • The right to clean, suitably fitting clothing that will meet the wearer's need for protection from the external world and homeostasis.

  • The right to clean, safe, fast and efficient transportation, on all scopes as described later in this Constitution.

No organization and no government can receive or require payment for the fulfillment of any of these aspects of the right to have one's needs met.

RIGHT #2: THE RIGHT TO SAFETY

We The People assert that we live in an objective reality with a natural world filled not only with wonders, but with many dangers, and therefore the government and organizations are mandated to protect, enforce and safeguard the very real need the people have to maintain and protect themselves, each other, their communities, nation and species.

These rights include, but not limited to:

  • The inalienable right to use lethal or non-lethal force in self-defense and defense of other people in life-threatening situations, whether those situations be immediate, or long-term such as domestic abuse, stalking or harassment.

  • The right of all individuals to own weapons.

  • The right to access and receive combat training, including in the use of weapons.

  • The collective right to own ordnance for all communities.

  • The collective right to form militias and militaries, and to give combat training access to all individuals in a community.

  • The right to secure one's domicile against all forms of attack, whether foreign or domestic

Weapons are defined as:

  • any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, drone or cannon, that can be held and operated by a single individual. Explosive devices equal to or less in power than a stick of TNT are also included.

Ordnance is defined as:

  • any vehicle designed for military or combat use, including but not limited to tanks, ships, airplanes, or spaceships; large weapons that require more than one individual to operate; explosive devices more powerful than one stick of TNT; bioweapons; nuclear, relativistic (such as asteroids or missiles deliberately launched toward another) or antimatter weapons. Note that individuals are explicitly ALLOWED to have vehicles NOT designed for combat use as defined here. No government or organization can declare a clearly not combat-designed vehicle as one.


FOR THE safety, protection, provision, and betterment of the people of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, the government is mandated to have and operate A SPACE PROGRAM, to be given no less than 10% of the federal government's gross earnings (whether they be taxes, direct revenue, however the hypothetical government makes money).

This space program must do, bare minimum:


And that's as far as I've got. The Motherfucking Galactic Republic is obviously just a filler name; I don't know if any of these ideas would ever be implemented but they could be used for any new nation, so...

Just the seven tenets of the Satanic Temple:

I empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. Crest image by Luciana Nedelea.

Crest image by Luciana Nedelea.

Truly inspired words to live by /s

the fuck even is the satanic temple, a philosophy? a religion? what does it even identify as exactly and why pick satan as their mascot

They're basically trolls who put pressure against blue laws. They're genuinely great and are a large reason why things haven't devolved into theocracy. Every time fundamentalists get a huge W passing an abusive law they come in to prove just how easy it is to turn it against them.

"If you think it's OK to merge the state with Christianity, then it is by your definition ok for us to build a satanic temple in the white house"

It’s basically an atheistic philosophy. I’m not sure why they decided to theme around a rather controversial and unpopular semi-deity from a religion.

im gonna guess it came from a 'piss off the religious nuts' mentality

rofl

The entire body of the state, be it executive, legislative, or judiciary should have a youth quota.

Like say at least 60% of members must be 40 or under.

People over 50 are fundamentally incapable of comprehending the modern world and because they won't have to live in the world they are building -- They are more than willing to sacrifice us all to guarantee their own.

Full disenfranchisement of the old would be reckless, but a quota? Yea.

Had shit to do. Had to stop short. Now that I'm back, a few additions:

  • Excessive Wealth and Political Activity are to be mutually exclusive -- If your net worth surpasses XXX (number to be determined) times the wealth of the average citizen of the nation, you are barred from all political participation, be it holding office or voting. You can reacquire your political rights by willfully surrendering assets (be it to the government or to a charity) until that condition is no longer met. -- If you are found using indirect methods to influence politics anyway your assets are to be seized and you tried as a criminal against national security. Vice-versa for politicians, if you become too wealthy while holding office, you forfeit your office or your wealth, you may not have both.

  • Human bodies are sovereign territory, not to be controlled by anyone but the individual themselves. Such sovereignty begins at birth and lasts until death. No family member, community backlash, or state intervention shall be allowed to intervene in that. Even if the individual is harming themselves, that is their right as their body belongs to them.

  • Free communication and free culture being recognised as rights, any law regulating trademarks or commercial copying rights should respect a person's fundamental right to sharing in human culture and human knowledge.

  • All laws, regulations and precedents must be reviewed every twenty years. In case they are no longer relevant and ought to be gone or need updating to match a changing world.

While I'm in board with the sentiment, I think there would be a lot of implementation problems with this. Just off the top of my head:

  1. I'm a parent, and my kid isn't competent to make decisions about his own body. Given the right to do what he wanted with it, he would immediately eat ice cream until he threw up, then do that every day in between gaming sessions until he died from diabetes.

  2. Existing laws being reviewed is a good idea, but I could see politicians with a slight majority holding fundamental laws hostage to extract concessions from other parties. You can work around this, but it could be difficult to avoid gotchas.

  3. Do we include right to free movement in the sovereign territory point? Because we have a large prison population. I'm on board with dismantling most of that, but there will probably always be people that need to be restrained from harming others.

  4. What counts as communication? Because if I can put a character on a shirt and sell them cheaper than the independent creator on patreon or wherever, most of their profits go away. I can subscribe and support them, then turn around and sell their work on the same website. I'm not a huge fan of copyright, but it did/does have a purpose beyond endless abuse by Disney.

As for the wealth tax thing, I don't care if it has implementation issues lol

  1. I will always be skeptical of the whole "I'm a parent and (...)" -- I guess because my own parents were keen on letting me fuck around and find out when I was a kid? After two ice cream binges end on being horribly sick, even a kid can go "... Yeah I'd better not". I should know because a similar scenario happened to me. I feel like trying to use -authoritative control- to keep people safe will just make them desire the thing they are being kept from even harder, and this is universal for children, teens, and adults alike.

  2. Fair enough

  3. Yes unless the person becomes a danger to other persons. The idea of a body being sovereign also applies the idea behind sovereignty of nations, I.E.: Once a nation starts fucking around starting wars, suddenly infringing on their sovereignty to put a stop to it is a good thing.

  4. This is a bit of a thing so I'mma break out of the list format so I can use more than one paragraph lmao:

In general my argument is that copyrights as they exist right now are a stifling force that mostly protects corporations while punishing both small creators and just... Regular individuals. For engaging in like. Human culture. Since I was suggesting lines for a constitution and a constitution is generally meant to be a sort of meta-law, like 'these are the intents of this state that we are forming, so the actual laws will reason on the practical application of it based on the intents', I didn't speak as to how this might be in practice. But to actually get into it --

I recently read the works of Lawrence Lessig, who is a bit of a stick in the mud and too much on the side of corporations for my liking, but when talking copyright the point he makes, which is a good point, is that at their root, copyright laws seek to regulate creativity as a commercial activity, I.e.: So you can't deprive creators of the money they might make from making stuff to sell by just waiting for them to make it and then reselling it. And that in the age of the internet where the line between "commercial creativity" and "just human culture being human culture" has become hopelessly blurred -- And that bad actors seek to keep that line blurry because it invests them with power. Power to use invasive DRM schemes. Power to charge for repeated viewings of something already purchased. Power to control what is even said about their product.

So if I were to make this into actual law, I'd make it so that every creative product would necessarily be copyrighted to a person or persons rather than a company. Because even bigass team projects are not made by a studio, but by the people that made them. Disney didn't make Aladdin 1991 -- It was written by Ron Clements, John Musker and Ted Elliot. So the story should belong to them. The amazing music was written by Tim Rice and Alan Menken, so it should be theirs, while the performances of said music in the movie should belong to the performers, the animation? It'd collectively belong to the people that made the drawings.

It's more overhead than saying "THIS CORPO OWNS IT ALL BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING WITH THIS CORPO" but it is ultimately needed, because this in itself would already do a lot to cull what, to me, is the biggest abuse within the copyright system. If something belongs to a person, that person will eventually die, and at that point the whole "you are denying this person the fruit of their own creation" argument dies with them. A corporation is an immortal abstract entity and should never be allowed to own -- Anything really.

I would also ensure the text of the law specifically protects creators against people profiteering off their creation without them being duly compensated -- So like, selling copies of someone else's art? Crime. Showing other people the art with no commercial intent? Not a crime, can never be one.

I like the copyright idea described above. I'm not sure how well it would work in practice, because I've never heard of anything like that being implemented, and new solutions almost always have problems. It's interesting though.

Regarding the kids making their own decisions thing- my example was intended to be a little funny, so I may not have picked the best one. Instead of the ice cream example, what about sex with adults? Sex changes? General amputation? Living on their own? Cigarettes? Harder drugs?

These are all things that kids can have opinions about, all things are mostly changes to their own body or bodily freedom, all things that can have terrible long term consequences. Should we prevent parents from controlling their kids, and allow the children to decide whether they want to do any of these?

Sometimes the finding-out part of the fuck-around-and-find-out experience is an irreversible addiction that there's no coming back from. Parents aren't always better, obviously, but they probably avoid more permanent harms for their kids than the kids would in their own.

Eeeeh, I can concede on the general premise of 'sometimes find out is something you don't come back from', although I am also skeptical of parents having childrens' best interests in mind when it comes to things like gender-affirming care because [gestures vaguely at the literally everywhere]

Yeah, fair. My parents were painfully religious and harassed me unmercifully because I wasn't, so I'm not saying it's all sunshine and roses. But leaving kids free to do whatever they want seems like it would have an attrition rate similar to turtles running for the ocean.

Adults can't be allowed to do whatever they want either, so it's not really a good idea to establish a hierarchy based on age. There are few things specific to kids that don't also apply to adults.

Actually the junk food example is a perfect example of this. Adults get diabetes from eating too much of it just as kids do, so everyone needs to cut down on their sugar intake.

And doing that doesn't require authoritarian intervention, just reclaiming of the means of production and restructuring them so food production no longer puts fucking sugar into everything.

This life doesn't have to be hard. Balancing health and freedom don't have to be hard. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I would bet that the obesity rate among children if they didn't have parents deliberately trying to get them into sports and making them meals at home would be almost 100%. You're saying "this affects everyone" which is technically correct but ignores that it almost certainly affects one group much more.

Yet most kids don't, and most kids aren't obese from it.

You can't simply force people to be healthy either. People, including kids, have the right to be unhealthy, and that's just something you have to accept if you want a free society.

If you don't accept it, that just means you don't want a free society, that's all.

And if you don't, you can advocate for it in the thread. As I said, I want people's honest opinions. But you can't have it both ways.

You're asserting that they have a right to make all of their own decisions, then asserting that I don't believe in a free society unless I agree. Neither of these things is obviously true- it's possible to support children having some decisions made for them without supporting totalitarianism.

See my other reply for examples of kids making their own decisions. Do you support all of those?

That's actually a strawman. I asserted all people, kids and adults, have the right to be unhealthy, and they do.

What a kid eats is between their parents and them, and no one else, not you or the rest of the community, has the right to simply stick your oar in like that because you think you have the right to keep kids under your thumb like that. You don't. To assert otherwise is authoritarian.

You might not like being called authoritarian, but it's the truth, and it doesn't change because you think all people should eat is fucking rabbit food. 🀦

If you want an authoritarian country, just say so instead of playing word gams with me. I'm not gonna give you the fight that you want.

Honestly.

5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

Most of those problems go away simply by banning capitalism, having direct democracy, abolishing the prison system and accepting that people have the right to be unhealthy and that includes kids.

Or one could advocate an authoritarian society where junk food is largely banned or made unavailable, rights are arbitrarily denied individuals when they are convicted of a crime, having AIs run everything politically and having the state own all corporations and all profits.

I was intending to make a more general point about the ability of children to make their own decisions. Obviously, I think the idea of punishing people for being unhealthy is ridiculous.

Also, I appreciate the optimism, but I don't think capitalism would go away if you banned it.

The former is a debate worthy of its own separate thread, I think.

A simple ban on capitalism alone wouldn't work, I agree with you on that. I'm of the opinion that the government and workers' unions ought to own the means of production and, when they do, they need to fully automate said means so money isn't necessary anymore, and when that happens, capitalism will go into the dustbin of history where it honestly belongs.

I probably come down more in the side of coops and unions than government, but yeah, that's probably more doable than an attempt at a ban.

5 more...
5 more...

Aren't a lot of professionals who build this world 50-somethings?

Broadly because of gerontocracy and the idea that oldness = competency.

It is also why the world is slowly dying and the people in charge don't give two shits: They'll be dead by the time it gets TRULY shitty so they don't have any incentive to care.

And as far as like, work is concerned, gerontocracy is fine.

Not so for politics. Hence, youth quota.

Also if you have a 'youth quota', it incentivizes the gerontocracy to actually value the youth and their knowledge (or lack thereof) and work to improve it.

Ehh. Blaming it on age and not the isolated actions of a single generation is really doing a disservice to all of humanity. Historically older people never hosed younger people as things have been happening now so it can't be an age thing.

Granted, there's historical precedent for having a mandatory retirement age and age minimums for a lot of things, but banning 50-70 year olds is a really hard sell, especially since that's around the age when people are the most influential and productive in their lives.

I didn't say a ban. I said a quota of young people in bodies of government to ensure the ancients can't piss all over the future just to get their own.

And I maintain that the main reason people are at their "most influential and productice" at 50-70 is because of a culture of gerontocracy, and that should not be the case.

And the late bloomers who are unable to start their lives until their 50s, what about them? And that happens a lot; domestic abuse victims who are never able to escape and are turned into slaves for their narcissistic parents or spouses until they die is a pretty good example. It's at best an unnecessary hurdle devoid of context.

"Quotas are a slippery slope to bans" to me smells the same as "affirmative action is racist".

Pretending that there is a slippery slope where there isn't even a slope to begin with, and if there is, it's sloping the other way.

Enfranchising the disenfranchised is not the same as disenfranchising the enfranchised and never will be.

And no, I don't think the "current generation of tyrants" is in any way special or different. It just so happens that we are living right now, and the current sword of damocles of climate change is so transparent and all encompassing that their sacrificing of the young to maintain their spoiled lives is so damn obvious.

But "old people in power make decision, and it is the young who pay for it" is in fact older than feudalism. Who declares the wars? The white-haired old heads in government. Who actually goes and dies in the wars? The young who are under their thrall. Who makes reckless economic decisions that lead to recessions? The old who already have property to lean back on. Who lives through those recessions and suffers without being able to afford a living? The young who had no choice. Etc. etc. etc.

It is older than feudalism. The tyranny of the ancients is the most -- Er -- Ancient. Form of tyranny in humanity. Simply because having time already gives one an unfair advantage in consolidating power.

Many ancient kings who'd send people to war were themselves young or middle aged.

And we can see on Lemmy that tons of people explicitly want politicians of a certain age to be forcibly retired, be that age 80 or 75 or 65 or whatever. You're swinging young even by our standards. So we can conclude it is a slippery slope because it is kind of what people want, and will incrementally allow people to make what they want socially acceptable enough to pass bans completely. Which is, of course, what a slippery slope is.

Everybody else did the same with smoking bans. We have eyes that can see and ears that can hear. Come on now.

I don't even necessarily disagree with you. I just want you to think about what you're asking for.

5 more...

Convert the date format to yyyymmdd on all official government documents.

Why not go with the international on dd.mm.yyyy why make everything special?

Because that date format is inferior. yyyymmdd is the standard date format in IT for a reason, there's nothing special about it?

All laws must be beneficial to all the children of the next 9 generations.

All laws that aren't part of the constitution, or charter have a 20 year sunset date.

I agree in principle, but this is practically unenforceable. How do we determine as a society what will be beneficial in 9 generations, and agree?

You build a timemachine. You set a date for the future. If the machine says that it cannot generate a portal at that date, you edit the policy until it does.

What will benefit the children born in 200 years?

Long term space colonization

Stopping climate collapse

Complete restructuring of our social and legal systems

A few little things here and there, really

Political parties are outlawed. Every MP should represent their own view, not tow a party line dreamt up by a PR agency.

Your vote affects others (like driving, owning a gun etc put others at risk). To vote you must pass a test; to pass the test we offer free education. To enable you to attend this education, we offer you a universal basic income. The test must not discriminate based on gender, age, sexual orientation, income etc etc.

I'll go the opposite. Political parties should be anonymous. We shouldn't associate a party with any single person.

This has caused people not to vote for a party because they don't like who is running it, but they agree with almost everything else.

If the parties became faceless entities, and a list of policies, then you can make a more informed and less prejudicial vote.

Who would design and oversee this test?

I get the subtext of that question and I can understand this concern.

But what I’m proposing is that in a new constitution to properties of the test is guaranteed and then you’d put a cross-population group of experts together to formulate a test that lives up to those constraints. No doubt you’d end up in a courtroom every now and again to settle whether a specific question was constitutionally sound or not.

I think we could work it out. We can for driving tests.

I think we could work it out. We can for driving tests.

I don't think we can. Have you seen the results of our "driving tests"?

In all seriousness though. I get what you want to do, but this isn't how you get there.

No human has any rights that they would deny to others.

  1. Environmental protection, LGBT and womens' rights including bodily autonomy would be explicitly written into the constitution

  2. The 2nd amendment would be rewritten to protect the right to self defense not the right to own enough guns to start a war.

  3. Our first past the post voting system would be replaced with alternatives that do not degenerate into a 2 party system.

  4. The electoral college and senate would not exist. House representatives would be allocated based on population.

  5. Supreme court justices would no longer be lifetime appointments.

  6. If there is a minimum age to serve in government, there will be a maximum age as well.

  7. The US will be obligated to abide by promises and treaties made with Native Americans.

  8. The president is no longer required to have been born in the US. The requirement that the president be a natural born citizen was meant to prevent foreign powers from gaining control during a tumultuous time in US history that is no longer relevant.

  9. Slavery would no longer be allowed for any purpose. (Currently it is legal in many states as a punishment)

  10. A wall of separation between church and state as well as the right to privacy would be explicitly written into the constitution. (The right to privacy is implied but not explicitly stated)

  11. Qualified immunity for police and other monopolies of violence would be abolished.

So I agree with all of these, but someone has to ask so it'll be me:

Why abolish the senate? It was established to be opposite the house as a system where every state is represented equally. The concept of the senate guarantees a form of equality between Rhode Island and California, where in the house a vote that massively benefits California will inevitably drag lesser states with it by sheer population difference.

The reality is that the states are mostly independent entities with their own constitutions and governments. What's good for California may not be good for Rhode Island, and it's not very fair that you'd have to get the whole east coast on board to vote down an initiative championed by California alone.

I understand that the metaphor between California and Rhode Island isn't a perfect one, its sole purpose is to illustrate the point.

Although not as important as population representation, locational representation still makes a ton of sense for a country as geographically big as the united states.

A purely population based government without locational representation on a federal level would likely tip the power of law to the 5% of US land mass occupied by cities, and end up having the other 95% eventually forced to follow laws that don't make sense from a rural or suburban perspective.

So the senate does serve a purpose in that regard.

Now, on the other hand, I do think certain US territories should have seats in the house and senate.

I dont think that all the states should be equal precisely because they have vastly different populations. People talk about how unfair it is for California or Texas to drag other states kicking and screaming wherever they feel like but the opposite side of that coin isnt really any more fair.

I do agree that large and small states may need to be governed differently but thats something that needs to be addressed in a more direct way not by tipping the scales in favor of states with more grain silos and cows than people. i.e ground rules need to be set about how and why laws are constructed. i.e the real issue that the senate doesnt actually solve, is that laws aren't being rationally designed in a way that makes sense for the states that are subject to them. As long as that underlying issue isnt being directly addressed, the senate wont really fix things. And I would strongly argue that history proves that the senate is being used more as a political baseball bat than it is a tool of low population states to defend themselves.

I do agree that large and small states may need to be governed differently but thats something that needs to be addressed in a more direct way not by tipping the scales in favor of states with more grain silos and cows than people

Yeah, sure, but the solution to that isn't tipping the scales the other direction. Having the senate exist in the government as a check against the house is a measure to keep the scales from tipping in the first place. They already must work together to get anything done, and that means that the senate is just as beholden to the house as the house is to the senate. The proverbial scales will inevitably tip the other way if the legislative branch is reduced to just the house. If your goal is preventing the scales from tipping, that's not how you do it.

I think what you're really proposing is a restructuring of the legislative branch altogether, with maybe more law making power shifted to the states. Because just eliminating the senate and leaving the system how it is now would result in a heavily unbalanced legislature.

Anyway, nice discussing this with you. This isn't an easy topic, for what it's worth. It took a hundred men several months to hash out the details of what we're casually sitting here discussing.

Should we care about the states or the people in the states? There are less people in Rhode Island than California. Are those people so much more important that they get more representation, proportionally speaking?

People have locational representation in their local governments. Let them rule over themselves if you want, but don't give them disproportionate authority over the rest of us.

I understand that line of thinking, and you'd have a point if the senate could act alone. But the senate and the house have to agree on everything they pass, with very few exceptions. That means that the fact that Rhode Island gets an equal vote in the senate doesn't actually matter if the majority of the population doesn't want something anyway. In the same way that the majority population doesn't matter if the individual governments can't agree.

The people in Rhode Island don't matter as much as the people in California for sheer numbers, and that is already reflected in the house. Seeking to abolish the senate isn't an exercise in majority rule, it's just disenfranchising the minorities that exist.

Edit to directly answer your question:

Should we care about the states or the people in the states?

We should care about both, given that we are a nation comprised of 51 smaller governments. It's asinine to assert that those governments don't matter on the federal scale. We have a system established already that cares about both. Axing the part of that system that keeps the most populous areas from getting everything they want is not the solution you think it is.

I chose to pose this hypothetical as a separate comment to better illustrate my point:

Why is it that proposing abolishing the senate only invokes the idea of stopping the minority from having authority over the majority and not the other way around? It needs to be said that the senate is just as much a check on the house as the house is the senate.

Let's say the house is the only voting body of the legislature. What is to stop them from imposing a 50% tax on all states under a certain population limit, paid directly to the other states? Obviously this benefits large swaths of the population, so their representatives vote unanimously yes. Now it doesn't matter how many representatives lower populated areas have because they will always be outnumbered.

So are you proposing that it's fair for extortion to take place in that manner? Because without an equal vote to be able to defend themselves on a more level playing field, you're inviting that kind of power imbalance.

Frankly, that's a ridiculous scenario. States are an artificial construct. There's no reason California couldn't be split into five states so they can get more senators, and there's no reason tiny east coast states couldn't be merged together. It's just a matter of political will. States rights do nothing to benefit the individuals living in those states. Often when we talk about states rights, states are imposing some kind of oppression or restriction on their citizens, abortion being the most recent example. The Supreme Court threw it back to the states, many of which banned it immediately.

The states don't matter! They're overgrown, glorified municipalities. If we are going to redesign the system, we need to reduce their power all together. States are a relic of a colonial system founded by the British, where each colony was individually granted a charter, and a of a constitution written at the same time the Holy Roman Empire was alive.

What stops ridiculous, punitive laws from being passed? What stops them from being passed now? The courts, for one, and the federal government. Often it's the states that are trigger happy in committing some kind of mayhem.

We've lived with states for so long that we've been gaslit into thinking that their existence is in our best interest. While states might be useful in some form, like in organizing regional infrastructure projects, their power should be diminished, and they are not deserving of house on par with the house of the people.

Of course, Congress is in need of other dire reforms as well. It should be bigger, for one, and first past the post should be replaced with some kind of alternate system (perhaps California-style jungle primaries?).

I believe the prompt was to reform the constitution, not the system. In case you forgot, or don't know, the states ratify the constitution. Not the other way around.

In a perfect world, sure. States need not be framed as rigid individual governments. In a scenario where the fed is overthrown and the states are intact, there's nothing stopping the states from just saying "nah, we'll form our own country".

Which if that's you're goal, I guess sure. The reason Texas hasn't done that already in the current system is that the federal government is there to stop them and they don't have the numbers.

I think your assumption in this thread is that the states already don't have power, which isn't even close to true. In the meantime ranting about how states are insignificant kind of comes off as missing the forest for the trees.

Frankly, that's a ridiculous scenario

I will say that the irony of you calling a hypothetical that I made ridiculous, and then immediately presenting a more ridiculous scenario isn't lost on me. So thanks for that.

The prompt just says the revolution was successful and that now it's time for a new constitution. It's not even US-specific, so there's no reason to assume that state governments even exist in the context of the prompt, much less need to approve this new constitution. There's no need for such niceties if we're in a world where a revolution has destroyed the old regime in its entirety.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Smaller states should have less of a say. I'm not sure how that seems unreasonable. The people should decide. It doesn't matter what state they live in. It might have made sense 200 years ago but now I can't believe people seriously support it.

Smaller states do have less of a say. The house and senate have to work together. If the majority of people don't want something, it still doesn't happen. The purpose of the senate is to prevent the smaller states from getting no say.

It's not that hard to understand.

It makes it too easy to game the system and create gridlock because you only need influence over a bunch of very small percent of the population.

No political system is immune from gaming. You're trying to fix a problem every government has on some level by disenfranchising smaller groups in general. That problem would and does still exist in the house alone. I mean, the house is gridlocked right now, and it has nothing to do with the senate.

1 more...
1 more...

Note: I used Community of Earth in case we discover other species, but I'd suggest changing the name according to the interplanetary travel and expeditions

I'm not an expert, but I propose the following:

First and most important

  1. Every individual, from any background and in accordance of the Community of Earth, has the right to the following:
  • a) To Housing in good living conditions, according to the Fourth Right rights and obligations
  • b) To Food
  • c) To Water
  • d) To Access of all public knowledge and knowledge funded completely or partially funded by the Community of Earth
  • e) To a Well-cared-for environment
  • f) To Migrate or Immigrate to any place in or out-of- the Earth
  • g) To reliable, well-cared-for, efficient Public Transport and any transport, in the conditions mentioned below
  • h) To Demand their personal data be protected and used only in the conditions mentioned below
  • i) None of the rights and obligations declared above can be overruled, modified or eliminated without the consent of the 100% of the population of the Community of Earth.
  1. Every individual has the right to be recognized by any entity, organization, individual or any group of individuals that need to use their information
  2. Every individual's identity and characteristics can't be damaged, abolished or affected in any way that invalidates their right to be recognized as they wish
  • a) All individuals and groups of individuals have to follow consent obligations, which can't be abolished nor modified unless they have the recognition of the entire Community of the Earth
  • b) There is no way, path, reform or modification that may affect the rights of the Community of Earth to vote
  1. All the individuals have the right to form organizations, which may be completely transparent in their financial background and members.
  • a) Organizations proclaiming an expert base to have a vote in knowledge or educational background have to adhere to the Second Right obligations and rights.

  • b) Organizations proclaiming an expert base to have a vote in the Community of Earth decisions have to follow the Third Right

  • c) Organizations can be overruled and stop being recognized according to the Community of Earth decisions

Second. Right of decision making for the Community of Earth

  1. Expert entities are those that have an extensive, recognized and valid knowledge recognized by the Community of Earth, in the area they intend to be recognized as experts
  2. Any organization participating as an expert entity for the Community of Earth, included but not limited to: Rights, Economics, Knowledge, Spacial, Exploring, Architectural, Transport and other kinds of entities that may affect the Community of Earth as a whole have to adhere to the following rights and obligations:
  • a) Decisions have to be based on facts. Decisions can't be influenced by religion, moral, personal or any other kind of influence that is not based on facts.
  • b) Decisions and propositions have to be completely open to the Community of Earth, if hidden, organizations are subject to the Sxith Right rights and obligations.
  1. Any organization, participating as an expert entity for the Community of Earth as stated above, can't choose, propose nor influence individuals or groups of individuals without the knowledge of the Community of Earth. Otherwise, they may be subject to the obligations stated in the Sixth Right
  2. Any organization, participating as an expert entity for the Community of Earth has to use standardized, free and open source software and standards according to the Community of Earth.

Third. The right of Knowledge

  1. Any organizations proclaiming educational and knowledge-access base have to be recognized by the Community of Earth
  2. Any school or educational organization may be funded by the Community of Earth, according to the following obligations:
  • a) All facts may be represented as facts, without any modifications and according to ages
  • b) All content may be reviewed by experts recognized by the several educational organizations of the Community of Earth
  • c) All knowledge, described by the several educational organizations of the Community of Earth, may be taught with enough evidence as the several educational organizations of the Community of Earth recognize
  • d) All individuals and groups of individuals, including those following a redemption path, have the right of education and knowledge
  • e) All software, hardware and equipment used with educational purposes has to be completely open to be reviewed by students and the several educational organizations of the Community of Earth
  1. All knowledge has to be based on facts, unless declared and approved by the several educational organizations of the Community of Earth as fictional content, included but not limited to: novels, sci-fi stories, movies, series, stories, myths, etc.
  • a) All knowledge declared and approved as fictional content can't be presented as facts nor used to influence Community of Earth decisions

Fourth. Housing and Living Conditions Rights

  1. Living conditions are decided by the Community of Earth

  2. Architectural and Urban design decisions are made by the several Architectural, Urban Design, Civil Engineer and housing and urban design organizations recognized by the Community of Earth

  3. Every individual may be provided housing with good living conditions, following their necessities

Fifth. Worker's Rights

I mean, the basics and, you know, Marx propositions lol

Sixth. Right of Punishment and Redemption

i haven't decided yet, but the Norwegian proposition sounds good and, with all basics needs met, it may not be necessary to be so strict. But there are still other things to be clear and I already spent too much time writing this

Seventh. Right of Exploration and Transport

  1. Pedestrians and cyclists will always be the priority
  2. Any vehicle that may be sold, interchanged, modified, gifted or any other kind of exchange, designed for private transport, has to follow the following obligations:
  • a) The vehicle has to follow environmental regulations, which are assigned by the several environmental organizations recognized by the Community of Earth
  • b) The vehicle has to follow the security for vehicle passengers and pedestrians regulations assigned by the several urban, environmental and other organizations selected by the Community of Earth
  1. Public and massive transport vehicles can only be acquired after the revision, auditory and recognition of the several urban, environmental and other organizations selected by the Community of Earth.
  • a) All information about the models, contracts, routes and other related information of Public transport, vehicles, software, hardware and other specifications selected by the several urban, environmental and other organizations selected by the Community of Earth has to be completely open to the Community of Earth and provided in an standardized, accessible and free (as in freedom and price) way.

And i don't know, I'm a Free Software advocate so that too has to be considered. Any way, I have more ideas, but not the time

Throw in health care coverage and I’m onboard!

Funnily enough, I had this exact scenario assigned as a project in my political science class in college.

What I came up with is a lottery-based council government. The system is designed with none of the "gentleman's agreements" that the US systems seems to be based on, and assumes that if it's possible to abuse the system, then the system WILL BE abused. So it's designed to minimize the ability for the system to be abused.

You want to get rid of career politicians? Make it so they don't even have the option of running for office in the first place.

Councils

The way my system worked is that all governmental tasks are performed by a council created for a specific purpose. Every council is made up of an odd number of members, with a minimum of 5. Councils can be created to manage a geographical area, such as a state, county, or city, or for a topical purpose, for example, medical oversight. Each council has the ability to create lower councils that report to it, but only within the purview of the parent council. For example, a State Council can create a Municipal Council for a city within the state.

Sitting at the top of the entire structure is the Prime Council, which always consists of exactly 11 members. Decisions of the Prime Council are final except in the case of a supermajority overrule as detailed below.

Lower councils are subject to the decisions of higher councils with one exception - a parent council's ruling can be overturned and vacated if a supermajority* of child councils that existed at the time of the ruling vote to overturn it. For example, if a State Council outlaws gambling, but 75% of Municipal Councils vote to vacate the ruling, it is overturned. But, for example, if a Municipal Council votes to allow prostitution, the state or national council can overturn that ruling on its own. Again, however, this overturning can be overridden by a supermajority of child councils. However, the chain ends there. A parent council CANNOT vacate a supermajority vote passed by the collected child councils. Child councils must have a reason for existing can cannot be created simply to stack a supermajority vote.

A singular case can only be tackled by ONE council at a time and cannot be interfered with during the proceedings by any other council at any other level. For example, if a Municipal Traffic Council is considering a motion to raise a speed limit on a road, no other council (Municipal, State, or even the Prime Council) can interfere in that case or tell the lower council how to rule on it. However, once the case is complete and the ruling announced, THEN a higher council may take up the issue and/or vacate the lower council's ruling.

Decisions of lower councils can be appealed, but a parent council has no obligation to take up the issue and can simply deny the appeal.

Courts

Courts, as we understand them, do not exist in this system, per se. Civil and criminal cases are handled in the same way; there is no separation between the case types. Likewise, there is no differentiation between the natures of the decisions that can be handed down. Every court case is presided over by a council created especially for the purpose of hearing this single case. All the other rules surrounding how councils work detailed the Councils section still apply.

The Lottery

Council members are selected by lottery from all eligible citizens. Each lottery is specific to the seat being filled. To be considered eligible for a given lottery, a citizen:

  1. Must be a member of the geographical area that the seat's council represents. For example, if the seat is on a Municipal Planning Council, the citizen must live within the city.

  2. Must meet the qualifications defined by the higher council when this council was created. In this case, perhaps, qualification requires that the citizen hold a bachelor of science degree in any subject.

  3. Must NOT have previously served on this same council.

  4. Must NOT have been declared unfit for service by a medical professional.

All citizens of legal age are automatically in the lottery pool by default, and the lottery operates on on opt-out basis.

If a citizen is chosen for a council, they have the option of declining the position. In which case, another eligible citizen is selected.

Additionally, a citizen can elect to be removed from the lottery pool for any or no reason for one year at a time. This election can be renewed indefinitely, but it must be renewed UNLESS a medical professional declares that they are unfit for service. An unfit-for-service declaration can be made for a specific amount of time or on a permanent basis.

Antagonistic Resignation

Any council member can resign their position on a council at any time before their term is over. In addition, a council member may enact the right of "Antagonistic Resignation" whereby they remove both themself and ONE other member of the council. There is no veto or override process allowed. To clarify, any council member can remove any other member from the same council by also removing themself at the same time. The replacement council member(s) will be chosen via the lottery.

Antagonistic Recusement

A council member MAY NOT vote on or interfere with the vote on any issue the results of which they may directly benefit from. That is to say that if a council member could personally benefit from a decision on a matter, they are REQUIRED to recuse themself from the case and may not interfere with the case in any way, including but not limited to public discussion or press releases related to the matter.

A council member with a conflicting interest in a single case must either resign from the council or recuse themself from the case. As with Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member chooses ONE other council member that must also recuse themself from the case to preserve the odd number of council seats. Again, there is no veto or override process allowed. However, unlike Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member MUST choose one other member for recusement - they do not get the option to decline. If the number of active seats on the council would drop below five for this single issue, interim seats will be created and filled by lottery for this specific case only, after which the additional seats will be removed from the council and the interim council members' terms will be considered complete.

Protection and Compensation

Serving on a council is a full-time job and may require taking a sabbatical from work. While an individual citizen has the ability to decline a council seat, NO other entity, individual, or organization may punish or otherwise act against a citizen for choosing to accept the responsibility of service. Therefore, it is considered unconstitutional for any entity to retaliate against a citizen for accepting a council seat, punishable by a fine of not less than 50% of that entity's yearly income. It is understood that this is a harsh penalty, and the severity and calamitous nature of it is intentional and intended to avoid even the outward appearance of impropriety or retaliation. If a citizen CHOOSES of their own accord to decline a council seat out of a sense of duty to an organization, that's allowed, but it is absolutely not acceptable for an organization to demand, tell, ask, or even imply that a seat should be declined.

It is required by law that an employee (and this shall be construed loosely, to include any person who is in any way a member of an organization) of an organization be reinstated at the end of their council service to their same position, pay, benefits, and tenure as though no sabbatical had been taken at all. This is inclusive of any required "re-onboarding" time.

Council members shall be paid the greater of 125% of their reported yearly income or 200% of the average salary of the relevant lottery eligibility pool. This shall be to incentivize citizens to fulfill their duty and serve on a council.

Councilar No-Confidence

At any time, the citizens may petition a geographical council (Prime, State, County, Municipal, etc) for a status of Councilar No-Confidence. This petition shall require the signatures of 55% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented. Upon submission of a completed petition, the council will be dissolved, and a new council will be chosen by lottery according to all the requirements for the council being replaced. This action is automatic and cannot be vetoed or overruled.

Branch No-Confidence (The Nuclear Option)

If instead, the No-Confidence petition contains the signatures of 75% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented, the council and ALL LOWER COUNCILS created by it, directly or indirectly, are dissolved and replaced as above. This is akin to pruning a branch from a tree - every branch and leaf connected to the branch is also removed. Note that this applies to EVERY level of the system, so a No-Confidence petition signed by 75% of the citizens of the entire country and submitted to the Prime Council results in the entire system being wiped away and reset.

It went a lot deeper than that, but I've already typed a LOT and think this mostly gets the gist of it.

This is great thanks for posting.
How do you deal with apathy? Like in current political climate in which many people (all?) would decline the lottery?

People could also have lots of reasons to decline. Personal, professional, etc. What were the incentives to accept?

Well, it's multiple things.

  1. People are paid for their time on the council, and by law the pay is AT MINIMUM 25% more that whatever you were already making, but could be considerably more depending on the pool of eligible citizens. Remember, the pay is the GREATER of 125% of whatever you were already making in your private job, or 200% of the average pay for the eligibility pool. So if you're making $40,000 per year and get called to council, you're gonna get paid a minimum of $50,000 for your term, but if the average pay for your eligibility pool is $40,000, then you're gonna be paid $80,000 for your term. It's structured so that there's always a strong financial incentive to serve.

  2. People don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter. When you're part of a pool of 10 million people, one vote is more or less negligible. But, when asked to serve, you're now one of only a handful of votes. Maybe one of 5. Maybe one of 11. But your vote absolutely matters in a way that nobody could dismiss.

And tbh, if somebody declines, it's really not that big a deal. Eligibility pools would be big enough that a nontrivial number of people could decline the position and we'd still have plenty of eligible citizens. Worst case scenario is come kind of coordinated general strike against serving on councils, but to be fair, if the population is pissed off enough to enact a general strike in a meaningful way like that, they would have enacted a Branch No-Confidence movement long ago.

It might be better to make participation mandatory to prevent a ruling class from demoralizing everyone else they way they did here with voting.

Don't be assholes to your fellow citizens.

The definition of asshole is a variable that can be abused based on who is in power.

As I pointed out to another guy in the thread, we can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word, but at the end of the day, those meanings don't change. We all know what an asshole is, and the context in which he is saying. Humans are hardwired to know that. If we weren't, no society would be possible.

Like I get that you want to prevent abuse but preventing people from using terms based on context isn't going to stop it. Evil people will abuse anything to have power over others. We can't let that stop us from using our own language.

πŸ‘‡Exhibit A right down there. Do you see what I mean? People will dispute absolutely anything to get what they want, and sometimes, they'll even treat the act of dispute as self-reinforcing. That's why we don't listen to them and go on about our business as usual. We have new nations to build; we can't let ourselves be hampered by meaningless disputes the other side will never allow to be resolved. So don't worry about it.

@Crabhands Exactly. And that's most of them.

@wildcardology argues that "all the definitions are in the dictionary".

True. But then it comes down to "who writes the dictionary", so it's just kicking the can down the road.

I actually started writing up a a new constitution a while ago as a sort of thought experiment. It's not finished yet but some of the highlights thus far include:

  • A unicameral congress, with uncapped membership
  • A right to privacy, free education, internet, and government transparency
  • Freedom from religion clauses
  • Constitutionally limited intellectual property: Copyright is 15 years for corporations, life for individuals.
  • Uncapped supreme court, 2 appointments per presidential term
  • Score voting for the president
  • Proportional representation for congress
  • No term limits

@fcSolar These are good additions to the existing constitution.

One thing I would like to add in terms of IP and Patent law is that you are free to reproduce Patented and otherwise protected physical items to any end, provided you make no profit in doing so.

This, coupled with 3D printing and future manufacturing tech, creates the foundation for a library/sharing/anarchic economy
@pinkdrunkenelephants

Right, patents are a whole separate thing. I added a clarification above that the 15 years/life is for copyright. The way I did patents is that corporations are ineligible for patents, and individuals get them for 5 years.

As long as labor is necessary, some form of market economy is likely to crop up, and as long as there's some form of market economy I'm hesitant to limit the ability for individual creators to make a living in said market economy, so I'm not sure I'd personally go for such a large carve-out from patent protections.

free to reproduce Patented and otherwise protected physical items to any end, provided you make no profit in doing so.

How would you prevent a company with gains from other means coming in and destroying a competitor only to start charging for their version after the other company goes under?

Corporations should honestly be banned outright. There's no actual reason to have them. Have workers' guilds do collective labor if it's that damn important, and ban the guilds from doing any of the evil shit corporations do.

That's just my opinion. I have a whole-ass treatise about what I'd put in a constitution and I might share it in the thread if people want to hear it.

Power doesn’t disappear. If it doesn’t exist in corporate form it’ll exist in political form.

To name a few:

  • No official decision may be made without the entire process towards that decision being recorded, documented, and these records be made available to the general public with minimal restrictions. With a specific exception if revealing that information would put more people in danger than concealing it.

  • All natural resources, be it harvested (e.g. ores, oil) or otherwise (e.g. land, air), are property of everyone. If any individual is to monopolise and/or utilise some of these resources, they are to compensate everyone else for doing so.

  • Resources for the public good are to be taken from each according to their ability, and redistributed to each according to their needs.

  • Any supreme office must exist with a hard maximum time an incumbent is allowed to serve.

  • It must be possible for any person holding an official position, including any supreme offices, to be held accountable for their actions in power.

  • All official decisions must strive to be made to materially benefit the greatest number of individual people.

  • It may not be the duty and/or responsibility of government to impose opinions on the general public.

  • In an election, any vote must hold the same weight as any other vote to the greater outcome.

  • Any income and/or net worth for individuals in excess of approximately 1 Billion EUR-equivalent is to be taxed 100% and redistributed among the public, to each according to their needs.

  • Lawmakers are to be compensated an amount directly proportional to the median income of all citizens, and any benefits they receive must be equal to the legal minimum.

  • No wage may be paid that is insufficient for a person to afford a decent existence.

  • No corporation may exist where the compensation of its highest paid member exceeds 500 times the lowest. Any shortfall will be taxed upon the company at 200% the excess, and redistributed across its staff according to their needs.

I wanted to include something that makes the government responsible for some standard of public transit, but I can't seem to get the words right...

I like your ideas, but have you considered that this one:

All natural resources, be it harvested (e.g. ores, oil) or otherwise (e.g. land, air), are property of everyone. If any individual is to monopolise and/or utilise some of these resources, they are to compensate everyone else for doing so.

Effectively makes literally everything free? Not that this would be a bad thing. It just makes so many of the other things irrelevant.

I was actually hoping to use that clause to incorporate a land value tax.

The wealthiest 10% of people must donate at least 5% of their yearly earnings to a general fund for public welfare, including free food, shelter and medical aid. Business assets domestic and international are included in this calculation. Anyone who attempts to hide assets to avoid donating, even within the confines of the law, can be tried for the manslaughter of everyone who died from poverty that fiscal year.

Essentially, if you have the financial means to help people, you are legally required to.

Why use the term β€˜donating’? You’re describing a tax. More specifically, an income tax.

You're not wrong, but I'd want it separate from tax so it goes directly to welfare and not just government funds. It also sounds nicer to donate than pay taxes, and you never get a donation rebate.

The word β€œdonate” implies that it's voluntary. If it's enforced by the government, it's a tax.

Tax goes to a single government spending fund, but I want this to be separate so it can't be channelled into buying guns or whatever. It's only welfare, and nothing else.

While donations are typically voluntary, there's nothing stopping it from being enforced. Someone can put a gun to your head and force you to donate to charity, and that's still a donation.

The vainglorious rich jerks might be less hesitant to part with their cash if they can boast about how much they donated, even if it was required of them. Only a little less, but that's still good.

I have thought about it, and I am sticking with "donate" as the term.

Tax goes to a single government spending fund, but I want this to be separate

Then it's still a tax, just a tax going to a different fund.

Someone can put a gun to your head and force you to donate to charity, and that's still a donation.

In that case, the person holding a gun to your head stole your money and then they effectively donated it to charity.

Punish those who work hard. Reward those who don't contribute to society. Let's see how that helps!

It's hilarious you think the people with the highest yearly earnings get that by working hard. Do you think Jeff Bezos has been working harder than you have this entire year in the time since you posted your comment alone?

1 more...

government policy will be primarily set by a peer validated group of experts in their fields. funding will be dictated by a multidisciplinary team that assesses need through funding requests by the expert bodies with accompanying impact assessments. that will dictate taxes and so on.

elections will be performative and meaningless as you lot have absolutely shown you can't be trusted but also need to feel heard or you'll break things you don't understand.

peer validate group of expert in their fields

With the restriction that there should be no financial interest in the policy being passed for a committee member.

good call. just well paid, expert professionals without a vested interest doing a job they are qualified to do, and being reviewed by people qualified to understand their performance.

so similar to current, except for the 'expert' part

currently governments fund and slash funding to all sorts of things according to political convenience.. I just want to see all those decisions validated entirely on merit by someone who understands it.

if it's popular with the mob but it's not true or doesn't work, well, we don't do it. president isn't an expert and can't say shit, and especially can't do stupid things so he can sound tough in a media release. we can't afford to keep dicking around with whatever sounds good to win popular support with the lowest common denominator while the world goes to shit.

the world is far beyond the level of complexity where any one person could understand enough to make off the cuff, meaningful decisions about big issues. people need to stop thinking they can vote sensibly on policy or policy performance on almost any issue, let alone all the issues.

Rule 1: No billionaires. Upon being assessed at having a net worth of 1 billion dollars, regardless of where your wealth is or how it's invested, the entirety of its ownership will be transferred to a public trust, and all liquid assets will be equally distributed to the poorest 1%. This rule is to never be ever re-defined due to inflation.

The richest person can not be X times richer than poorest person.

Choose the X value wisely. Mine is 1000.

Very hard to define this rule. Money in the bank? Collective value of possessions? Value of those possessions set by whom and to what standard? What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.

That's why writing laws is hard. But you get the intention: limit wealth inequality.

If they can spend the money on something not necessary for the company it should be counted as their money I think

Companies get their own money separate from an individual but after a certain bracket they have to be audited by an impartial third party to make sure the money isn't just being used for personal stuff

What about rich people not owning much but having everything in their company, non profit, etc.

Why do we collectively call people like that rich?

Most of the rich, including billionaires, don't have any actual wealth. Even the stocks they take loans out against aren't really a guaranteed source of funds; the stock market could crash over any little old thing, wiping the books.

I believe most rich people are just scammers who tricked everyone else into giving them special privileges, and most of America's wealth is not real. I think the real wealth, i.e. the gold and such, were stolen decades ago.

Not even gold is "real wealth". The value ascribed to gold is in essence the same as the value we ascribe to anything else.

It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It's useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective -- its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.

Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let's go with land -- the real rich people are the landowners, as they're the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.

3 more...

The voting system will be the Tideman method

While Ranked Pairs sound good in theory, how would you actually sell this method to normal people? Transparency is one of the basic requirements for the acceptability of a vote, and this method will be beyond maybe 70-80% of the American public, if not more.

I don't think using ignorant Americans as a policy standard is going to achieve anything.

Well, a lot of them don't really understand the current system either.

What is important is how are you, as a voter, gonna vote for the person you want to win. In the end, it's either choose one or rank them from top to bottom.

What could be the problem is tallying several million individual votes, let alone putting them into a computer. I wonder what the algorithmic complexity is for this system.

Having a FOSS voting system would enable electronic voting without the baggage. Decentralize the means to certify votes. End to end encryption and anonymization always. If there are groups of people who disagree with the vote, they get separated from the main group and given land and territory of their own. That's how I'd do it.

FOSS has nothing to do with security. Decentralization works as long as there are more good than bad actors, otherwise you got a recipe for disaster.

If its anonymous how do you keep malware from voting for people. Do you also intend to first solve computer security THEN solve government as well? Voting by mail is already reasonably easy to secure.

Just use a blockchain.

This destroys anonymity its a public ledger and how do you imagine that helps security. Your vote is only as secure as your shitty insecure computer.

It's pseudonymous and is the best anonymous voting option we have. They aren't actually tied to people's personal information and you know this. A blockchain will therefore be perfectly fine.

If no electronic option is good enough for you, remember the tyrants of today and yesterday have already mastered rigging the paper ballot and they likely already do have your voting history tabulated in some archive somewhere. If you think blockchains are a security nightmare, then the ID system to tie voters to paper ballots will give you PTSD.

There is no reason to believe that paper ballots aren't securable NOW and no reason to believe we will ever be able to secure electronic voting.

If you want to using cryptography print a challenge on the ballot have them type the number into 90s era flip phone sized device and have them write the response on the ballot. Without understanding anything about crypto they and the government both have half of a key and nobody can fool anyone.

Mathematically impossible to commit fraud based on math that has been given massive attention by a small army of very smart people.

If you can secure paper ballots, then blockchain voting by extension is much more secure.

Especially since blockchain encryption is not only extremely secure, but there is huge financial incentive to not break it, and that psychological barrier is ultimately the important one.

If you vote on your computer how exactly do you keep people's computer from voting for them? How do you keep them from for instance changing the UI so that the graphic for candidate A actually registers a vote for B?

How do you provide a way for user bob to verify he voted for A without also implicitly providing an easy way for him to verify his vote to someone pressuring him to share how he voted either to reward him for voting how that party pleases or to punish him for voting "incorrectly".

How do you provide a way to audit the vote without being able to see how people voted? If you do as you must have a database of ids to actual voters how do you keep that from leaking allowing everyone to see how everyone voted? Alternatively maybe it just leaks to whatever party is in control and THEY know how people voted so they can better target people for encouragement or suppression.

Not a single one of these issues is an issue with paper ballots but every one of these is a deal breaker for e-voting and some of them are mathematically unsolvable like it being impossible to have an auditable and secret electronic ballot.

Our current method of voting works and works well. We don't NEED an answer a few days quicker at the expense of totally destroying actual security and secrecy. This is a dumb idea and we are all dumber for having spent time thinking about it.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

Technology for that exists. We just need to use it.

2 more...
2 more...

There are voting methods hard to explain, this one is quite easy: "the winner must win against most of the other candidates on a 1x1 comparison"

And to avoid making nΒ² voting rounds, we rank our preferences, the first beats all, the second beats all but the first...

2 more...

Any ranked choice voting system is subject to Arrow's theorem; range/score/approval voting would be more effective.

2 more...

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

All financial information must be disclosed by anyone with power over others.

Somehow replace shares with cooperatives and employee ownership.

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same with sheriffs. No elected police. Police should be a career, like a civil engineer. To be promoted, people must pass ever more strict ethics courses.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

Children must not be mutilated by their parents religion.

National healthcare.

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

A lot of those tests have already been done and were used almost exclusively to enforce segregation.

To be fair, literally anything can, will be or probably has already been used to enforce discrimination or segregation somewhere in the world. We won't get anywhere living in fear of bigots.

Which why there has to be strict oversight to prevent that from happening.

Oversight by whom?

Your new government, presumably.

Though if you can't trust it to faithfully enforce its laws, why have it? Or any government, for that matter?

Like, you can take the fear of discrimination to justify not having anything

You cannot trust a government to routinely create arbitrary standards used to regulate that same government.

This is different from a government enforcing your average law because this law applies to the election process itself and allows for significant bias. Where there is room for bias in this process, it will be taken advantage of. Look at gerrymandering.

What problem does your law actually solve? If people are willing to elect a candidate, isn't that a sufficient measure of competency? At best you're creating an elitist state controlled by those who set the bar for competency, and at worst you're creating a one party state.

Then you can't have any government, or really, any meaningful social interaction.

All democratic governments are built on the assumption they'll be acted upon in good faith, because without good faith, no cooperation or society is possible. All a society is is a group of people either working together in good faith.

If you want to go off and live by the law of the jungle, then by all means, go ahead. But the rest of us will move on without you.

Most of what you've described would inevitably lead to the establishment of a single party totalitarian state.

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

Don't like the opposing party? Just make it part of the test. Today, one party could exclude the other by including questions that agree or disagree with critical race theory, voter fraud, etc.

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same issue. Who determines impartiality? The party in power? Single party state.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

Who determines "ethics"? Single party state.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

What is religion? You're definitely banning several books, and possibly banning a lot more. Many books can be turned into a religion or contain religious aspects. The party in power decides what's a religion and what gets banned.

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

At that point, why have a separate Senate and House? The point of a two-chambered Congress is to balance state and federal power.

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

I can see corruption in this very easily. We already have commissions that review the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities when it comes to voter registration but they still fail to actually do their job.

All financial information must be disclosed by anyone with power over others.

All parents must now disclose all financial information.

Somehow replace shares with cooperatives and employee ownership.

I agree with this but it will be hard to keep the economy stood up. How would you encourage people to start a new business and not just become an owner of a megacorp?

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same with sheriffs. No elected police. Police should be a career, like a civil engineer. To be promoted, people must pass ever more strict ethics courses.

If they aren't elected, then how are they picked? Who sets the requirements for those picked? This is exactly how we end up with all-white police forces, judges, and civil engineers pushing minorities to the inner city.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

I can see this going wrong in all sorts of ways. Especially since "power over anyone" includes being a parent to children. You are now taking children away from their parents. Parents who can easily get accused of working against their ethics but in reality never did.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

Children must not be mutilated by their parents religion.

This seems the most silly. It turns religion into a banned book. You essentially are doing the exact thing that right-wing school districts are doing to minorities by banning books. The solution isn't to ban children from knowledge, it's to give them a fully informed choice. Religion exists for a lot of reasons, some of them good. Although I am not religious, at most I am Taoist and not being able to share the way of Taoist life with my children would be insane.

National healthcare.

Yes, please!

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

Hmm, this just turns the Senate into the House.

Those "competency" tests will be used to discriminate.

Make it illegal for politics to be based around religion or ethnicity. Also, I’d make capitalism illegal just like nazism.

So you want an authoritarian state?

Tolerance for intolerance leads to intolerance. If you call that authoritarian, be my guest.

You want to ban capitalism. You'll end up with an authoritarian state as a result of that choice as every non-capitalist state is or has been authoritarian.

First No elected official is allowed to take money or goods in excess of 50% of the median salary for all workers in the country in total for the entirety of their time in office from any organization or unrelated individual nor sit on the board of any company following office. Any payments to said official totalling over 50% median salary in the 5 years prior to their election and 20 years after leaving office from a single entity must be declared. The state will provide a generous pension to ensure future employment is not a financial necessity.

These measures are intended to allow elected officials to be free from influence.

Second Any change in leadership of a political party immediately triggers a general election. Change in leadership generally means a failure of the manifesto and/or a change in the policies which were presented to the public when the leadership was elected.

Third No advisory referendum shall be conducted without the intention to act upon the outcome and therefore any referenda should only be acted upon with a super majority of 66%. Prior to action following a referendum, the winning side must demonstrate how the result will be acted upon and where negotiation with outside interests is necessary, since the outcome cannot be known at the time of the first referendum the public should be offered a second referendum to decide whether to accept the outcome.

Fourth Politicians shall be held to account for any lies or dishonesty. Burden of proof lies with the politician accused of misconduct to provide evidence for their claims which are in dispute. Therefore evidence provision at the time of any claims is encouraged and can be published to a publicly accessible repository. Punishments can range from fines to removal from office depending on the severity and frequency of misinformation.

Fifth Proportional representation she'll be enacted to eliminate tactical voting. In addition any changes to the electoral district are subject to scrutiny by a randomly selected jury of 1000 residents in each of the affected areas. Voting by, and identity if the jurors shall be anonymous. The public may request redistricting at any time with a 2 year cool off via a petition meeting a minimum number of 100,000 signatures.

Retail employees may legally put hands on the customer

And every person working in a call centre gets one free orbital laser shot per shift.

Using "think of the children" type arguments in political debate should be punishable by loss of passive voting rights (the right to be elected) for life. And the same for "If you have nothing to hide" type arguments.

Essentially the whole climate change debate centers around the wellbeing of future generations aka "the children". How is this not valid?

I am not talking about arguments about future generations, I am talking about "we need to watch everything you do because some bad people do bad things to children" type arguments. Or, for that matter, the arguments from conservative and religious people who claim we can't talk about LGBTQ+ people existing because it might scar children to see two guys kissing.

Basically using children as an argument to further your political goals that you had anyway, regardless of any children because nobody wants to be seen arguing against the well-being of children.

  1. They whom smeltith, Dealtith.
  1. But let they whometh deniedit, ne'er be said to'a suppliedit

Everybody gets to vote within 35 minutes or less, maybe I should rephrase that too on average in a voting area that people vote in 35 minutes or less. Make it unconstitutional stand in line for eight hours to vote just as an example.

All voting areas are drawn and simple squares are rectangles and it is done via a mathematical algorithm.

Abortion is a constitutional right, no limits, it is always between the person who is pregnant and their doctor.

In the United States we called the fairness doctrine, I would put that into the constitution.

A gross income tax if you are above a certain income you get taxed before you get to do any deductions or write off or anything. That same gross income tax would apply to trust funds it would also apply to businesses.

Dark money in terms of politics would be bound by the constitution. Businesses would not be allowed to run ads or donate money. Money going to campaigns has to come from an individual and the maximum be US$5000 per year.

The Constitution isn't the appropriate place for legalizing abortion. This should be done in the next DΓ©claration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen

This one mystified me a bit. Why should we only get 35 minutes in which to vote? Then I realised you meant usually the queue was hours long in your country. Still seems pretty bizarre.

We have compulsory voting here (rich people can afford the fine, but if you're less rich like me, it isn't worth it to not vote) and so everyone votes, pretty much, but the two weeks they give you to get a vote in at a before-the-cutoff seem pretty normal to me, and there's always postal votes if you aren't able to go in for two weeks and can't afford the fine. Why not just open up the voting to a longer amount of time? Then you could go in after work one day to prevote in the two designated weeks like we do.

Words are cheap. I would suggest that citizens sing a song together at noon, to celebrate their joined opportunities.

FPTP voting is banned everywhere.

Full financial transparency for all elected officials. If Matt Gaetz buys a dildo, everyone knows about it. Serving in Congress is a service, not something you should want to do for life.

Wyoming Rule.

Gerrymandering is treason. Straight to gitmo.

Bribery is treason. Straight to gitmo. In cases of corporate bribery, the board is held responsible.

Money is not speech.

Corporations are not people.

Not quite sure how to codify it in law, but something to force anti-trust action (since existing laws just aren't enforced). Maybe every year, the top 5 companies by market cap are forcibly broken up into at least 3 entities?

(since existing laws just aren’t enforced)

πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

I've been thinking about this a lot since making the thread and I've realized that one of the root causes of our problems as Americans is that we haven't enforced the laws we've had on the books for a very long time, and we haven't because we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by evil people. I am not sure if it's possible to build a system that can protect people against having the very same debate system we evolved with turned against us to convince us to do or accept things we otherwise wouldn't.

We need to change, not just the law.

Very true.

I think that's why the majority of my suggestions relate to democracy itself -- if we can get away from "two parties pooping back and forth forever", we increase the odds of good people getting into power. Hopefully.

This needs to be encoded in the system we build - that it is not possible to build the perfect system of law, but rather any system we build will, over time, come to reflect the character and viability of our principles.

If the old government is gone why would i want to replace it with another one?

To stop your neighbour from hiring a bunch of goons to come take your house because he likes your water feature. Unless, you desire to be that neighbour?

If a bunch of goons come to take your house and you fight them off, you are defending yourself. If the government decides to expropriate your house and you fight them off you are a criminal.

How to do voting even is a big question. The really representative systems tend to end up with razor thin coalitions full of smallish parties that play brinkmanship. There's got to be a way to discourage that, but I don't know what it is yet.

More controversially, it should probably address economic inequality in some way.

Does everyone have to like it or do I just get to pick one and everyone has to live with it? If the latter, I might give technocracy a try…

I don't think it's possible to make a decision absolutely everyone will like

Any form of political corruption should be severly punished.

Any political office should have a limit of two terms.

Our Constitution as it is is pretty good, so wisdom would be to tread lightly. I think the only change I would make is to prohibit primary elections. That would be considered a right, as in, no person or group may deny a candidate with sufficient signatures the right to appear on the ballot. I would also mandate some sort of ranked choice voting or instant runoff election. These two changes would be to fix the problem of having to vote against a bad guy rather than voting for a good guy. It far too often ends with the second worst candidate who goes into the primary, coming out victorious. We should be electing the best, not the second worst.

Whose constitution is "ours"?

Sorry, I forget that while Reddit had a largely American userbase especially in political posts, Lemmy does not. I refer to the United States Constitution, which I think is damn near perfect, but has been screwed up by multiple generations of voters who pay little or no attention to their government's mismanagement and just keep re-electing the same incumbents despite having shit approval ratings for Congress, because they don't bother to actually do any research of their own or read what the candidates write other than just a few sound bytes on TV.

  • sovereignty, and the necessary respect for mutual sovereignty, are the cornerstone of law
  • government may have absolute authority over is own services, but may not determine what services a citizen subscribes to
  • a decent portion of taxes must be self-directed
  • taxes apply equally to all valid legal entities
  • all legal entities receive UBI from those taxes
  • the only act of compulsion permissible by the government is to reduce compulsion, and may only be applied to the compelling party.
  • contribution of time, energy, effort, and attention may not be compelled
  • isolation may not be denied
  • strict separation of church and state
  • strict separation of government and bon-government financial interests
  • government pay is proportional to average income

Why hasn't anyone ask about the country ?
Are people from Lituania supposed to want the same as people from Brazil ?

It doesn't actually matter. Policies are policies and rights are rights regardless of country.

I speak with an American bias and assume everyone is speaking with bias from their home countries. That can't be helped.

I and many others have taken to writing out our ideas under the assumption that this takes place in a hypothetical future, or at least will apply in the future, when space travel is a thing.

It does matter. Policies are different in different countries partially because different folks have different expectations. Autonomous states? One state? Centralised administration? Descentralised administration? Culture plays a big role in which you would prefere.
Geography also matter. Borders can not be consider the same if you are inland, on an island or your country is an achipelago.
In some country, cold weather can be so hard that heating is essential to survival. In other, people could sleep all year long directly on the ground without catching a cold. Do your constitution should considere access to heating and warm cloth for all citizens ?

Didn't Iceland do this a few years ago, after their economy crashed?

I have no idea.

The question of whether the text of the proposed constitution should form a base for a future constitution was put to a non-binding referendum, where it won the approval of 67% of voters.[3][4] However, the government's term finished before the reform bill could be passed, and following governments have not acted upon it.

Wait. So does Iceland have an official Constitution now or nah?

copy the old one verbatim (it is flawless)

/s ←←

There are lots of good ideas out there, I'll just add some that are pretty niche:

  1. Anything that is legal to do for free is also legal to do for money.
  2. All laws must have a justification for them written into something like a preamble. If the justification turns out not to be true, winning something like a basic law suit against the law is all that is needed to have the law struck down. No need to wait for legislators to pass a repeal bill or for a very specific case to make its way to a supreme court.

I live in South Korea and the constitution says that we should at least try to make peace and unify with the North Korea.

Fuck that. Fuck all those communist pigs who slaughtered our people and constantly put our country in danger and in sticky situations.

Don't try to reason with North Korea because they are mindless warmongering communists. Don't be a dick and start a war but if they start it, you fucking go out there and wipe them off of the map.

Wipe out their leaders. Remember that a lot of people are just following orders on penalty of treason/death.

100%. All the programs and infrastructures regarding NK defectors should also be more funded imo.

I think they will be seriously pissed off if anyone says anything about cLaSs CoNsCiOuSnEs

what zero class awareness does to a mf

So I should like North Korea if I am class conscious?

I've seen so many tankies in Lemmy shilling NK unironically. Why? They killed our soldiers, threatened us with missile attacks, and I had to unwillingly serve millitary for 1 and a half year.

Their government is a joke that seriously doesn't deserve the term 'government'. People are suffering. They are literally no better than Nazis.

What does class awareness have to do with making peace with Kim-centric theocratic nazis?

5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

A universal right to purchase, own, sell and (if applicable) conceal carry any weapon that is allowed to be used by the nation's military, without any kind of permit or registration. Also, explicitly prohibit military conscription and legally equate it to slavery.

I have to vastly disagree with this. The argument hat a gun is a necessity is disingenuous at best.

I love my guns, but too many fuckwads treat it like a toy or some sort of social justice equalizer. It has been proven to me time and again that we cant trust people with unfettered access to fire arms.

Y'all can't even have political discourse without being violent. So nope, you don't deserve to have the right to bear arms. (I mean "you" collectively and include myself in this hypothetical).

You are not supposed to operate a car without a license but somehow, trying to regulate guns is big brother trying to take away muh freedoms.

It just doesn't stand up to actual critical thought.

Y'all can't even have political discourse without being violent. take away muh freedoms

I understand why my message might suggest that I am American, but I am, in fact, not. I won't go into details to avoid doxxing myself, but I live in a country with strict gun laws, and, in long term, the lack of civilian firearm ownership has proven to have much worse consequences than the opposite.

To add to my original comment, I believe that "without any kind of permit or registration" should be explicitly stated in every article that guarantees some kind of right, as the lack of such statement often leads to slow erosion of the right, starting with the requirement of declaration, and then permission, which then gets more and more difficult to obtain (example: the right to public protest in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine)

lol. You have the chance to change something and your idea is: "Hey we need more shootings. Not enough children and other people get shot. Let's increase the number"

Addendum: With a lottery allocation of ammunition. Each year, one lucky citizen recieves 1 bullet in the mail and can decide to whatever they want with it!

Give the land back to its rightful owners and that's it. Nothing else. EDIT: and compensate for what was lost through genuine restorative justice.

It's not up to genociders to decide what gets done with their land.