this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
162 points (88.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43979 readers
786 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Marriage as a union of two or more consenting adults

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Open carry of guns... no

Open carry of booze... yes

Let's party!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Znarf176@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 4 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fubar91@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. They whom smeltith, Dealtith.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rothaine@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Retail employees may legally put hands on the customer

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] cloud@lazysoci.al 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd put 1 and 2 right back in. It ain't broke

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί