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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
You can just edit your post, you know
I know, and I did… the last paragraph was edited.
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
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
🤔🤔🤔
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…
-
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.
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
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!
No human has any rights that they would deny to others.
-
Environmental protection, LGBT and womens’ rights including bodily autonomy would be explicitly written into the constitution
-
The 2nd amendment would be rewritten to protect the right to self defense not the right to own enough guns to start a war.
-
Our first past the post voting system would be replaced with alternatives that do not degenerate into a 2 party system.
-
The electoral college and senate would not exist. House representatives would be allocated based on population.
-
Supreme court justices would no longer be lifetime appointments.
-
If there is a minimum age to serve in government, there will be a maximum age as well.
-
The US will be obligated to abide by promises and treaties made with Native Americans.
-
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.
-
Slavery would no longer be allowed for any purpose. (Currently it is legal in many states as a punishment)
-
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)
-
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 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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
-
