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.
Removed by mod
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!
I so wanted to downvote you because that legit annoyed me lol.
Shout out to my boy 📢 📢 📢 A-A-ABRACADABRA HAM 📢 📢 📢
Housing should be affordable, and never sold as an investment
Housing is a human right. Along with access to food, nutrition, healthcare and education.
And water + clothing
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.
Removed by mod
That’s not what was originally written though. Also, 10% more capacity than is needed sounds very wasteful.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Here’s your error: you’re assuming the mortgage will never be paid off. Which just isn’t true.
That’s not at all what this conversation was about. It’s about upfront costs.
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.
Making money off the renter isn’t needed when they can make money off of selling the property.
Even if they were paying out of pocket the difference would be interest, not some magical 33% as you suggest.
I never suggested anything of the sort. Please read my words better.
Not sure what you are smoking but with a 25 year mortgage my calculator says that’s ~2k a month (without interest).
You are insane. You’ve dropped interest from your calculations entirely. It’s like saying “I put in a 580,000 dollar down payment and now the monthly payment is 0 so checkmate!” Try to put a decent interest rate on that like 5%-10% Which the average for my area is 7%.
We can talk about the math when you come back with numbers that add up.
You literally ignored the interest which I gave the numbers for. You need to read better if we are to have a conversation otherwise this is pointless if you are going to drop one of the major components that make up the final monthly payment.
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.
They aren’t paying a typical mortgage on it though. Because they get a large business loan with a smaller interest rate overall to cover it then they build a portfolio from that and use the cash flow to buy properties outright for cheaper overheads than renting. So they then charge the renters a cheaper rate than the mortgage they could get. This is why renting entirely is important.
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.
deleted by creator
I think it’s pretty exhaustive lol
deleted by creator
You can just edit your post, you know
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
Don’t worry. This is all a utopia nowadays so we don’t have many options haha
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
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.
I like that idea!
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.
I don’t have a problem with that
They will just move their companies in other countries, as they do now.
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.
Make laws based on actions but not beliefs fundamentally doesn’t make sense
Can you please elaborate on that? What beliefs do you think should be against the law?
They are saying that beliefs shouldn’t determine laws. That doesn’t make sense as beliefs are the foundations of laws. But dangerous beliefs like Nazism and Zionism ought to be illegal
They are saying that beliefs shouldn’t determine laws.
That’s not what I meant. I am saying you shouldn’t be arrested simply for holding a belief. Not until you commit an action such as assault, murder, torture, forced labor, or one of a million other things that Nazis do should you be arrested. Being racist shouldn’t be illegal. You should have the right to be a shitty person. But as soon as you hurt someone because of your racist beliefs, you should be arrested.
And what benift could be derived from allowing Nazis free reign to convince others to kill Jewish people?
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.
People actinglike that was exactly how the Nazis gained power
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
- 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.
- Fair enough
- 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.
- 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.
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.
-
-
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.
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 just a slippery slope to bans, honestly. It’s how all people are, not the current generation of tyrants we’re trapped under.
I’m not judging you for offering your opinion on the matter at hand or anything. I just thought it was worth a quick debate, is all.
“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.
Too many too old politians. But how to slim the fat. Quota is a neat idea. How about senility test, based on current known conditions and the avg age they occur. The test needs to occur more frequently on people of older ages due to increase odds.
I feel a quota alone would sometimes screen out perfectly fine older people, while keeping the ones who shouldn’t be there .
Also 40…damn. I think 20 and 30 year olds can, but rarely have enough life experience for something like this. 35-65 is probably prime age for politicians IMO.
Also a pretty interesting idea, a sort of per-election test to see if they are both fully sane and up to date on current events.
… Although the senility test might end up as a tool of disenfranchisement anyway. Just remember Literacy Tests in the American Slave States during Jim Crow.
🤔🤔🤔
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:
-
Fund the exploration and colonization of the Solar System
-
Construct O’Neill cylinders of minimum size 5 miles in diameter and 20 miles long
-
Begin and operate mass production of antimatter
-
Fund and operate scientific and research projects, including but not limited to construction and maintenance of space telescopes, to study the universe
-
Begin and operate mining and resource extraction of all minor planets, asteroids, and comets in the Solar System. All heavenly bodies in the Solar System collectively belong to the people of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic and their contents must be fairly and evenly distributed to the people in accordance with this here Constitution Of Justice And Cookies.
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…
-
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?
Youre right, it is sorted automaticaly.
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.
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.
How would that be determined?
Fuck, yeah!
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
I tend to agree with pinkdrunkenelephants
Law sunset time is interesting.
Jefferson proposed the idea, didn’t get the Continental Congress to agree
