A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
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.
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.
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.
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.
Make it illegal for politics to be based around religion or ethnicity. Also, Iβd make capitalism illegal just like nazism.
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.
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
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?
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.
Words are cheap. I would suggest that citizens sing a song together at noon, to celebrate their joined opportunities.
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.
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.