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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Haha, I guess it is pretty long, but there are so many things that really need to be added, like protection for minorities like LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities, religions... I kinda forgot to write that because I thought it was obvious to write it in. Also protection for bodily autonomy including abortion rights. I feel these are really important, but I forgot because I was tired, and there are more I'm forgetting.
Oh man I would definitely vote for that. That's an impressive list and I agree with everything! I'll save this comment for the future
Sadly I have the charisma of a dying turtle, and suck at debates, so convincing people in person is hard.
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.
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"
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.
That would get rid of inflation really fast as billionaires try to figure out how to deflate the currency.
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
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.
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:
Ordnance is defined as:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because that date format is inferior. yyyymmdd is the standard date format in IT for a reason, there's nothing special about it?
All laws must be beneficial to all the children of the next 9 generations.
All laws that aren't part of the constitution, or charter have a 20 year sunset date.
I agree in principle, but this is practically unenforceable. How do we determine as a society what will be beneficial in 9 generations, and agree?
You build a timemachine. You set a date for the future. If the machine says that it cannot generate a portal at that date, you edit the policy until it does.
Long term space colonization
Stopping climate collapse
Complete restructuring of our social and legal systems
A few little things here and there, really
Political parties are outlawed. Every MP should represent their own view, not tow a party line dreamt up by a PR agency.
Your vote affects others (like driving, owning a gun etc put others at risk). To vote you must pass a test; to pass the test we offer free education. To enable you to attend this education, we offer you a universal basic income. The test must not discriminate based on gender, age, sexual orientation, income etc etc.
I 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.
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.
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.
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.
Should we care about the states or the people in the states? There are less people in Rhode Island than California. Are those people so much more important that they get more representation, proportionally speaking?
People have locational representation in their local governments. Let them rule over themselves if you want, but don't give them disproportionate authority over the rest of us.
I understand that line of thinking, and you'd have a point if the senate could act alone. But the senate and the house have to agree on everything they pass, with very few exceptions. That means that the fact that Rhode Island gets an equal vote in the senate doesn't actually matter if the majority of the population doesn't want something anyway. In the same way that the majority population doesn't matter if the individual governments can't agree.
The people in Rhode Island don't matter as much as the people in California for sheer numbers, and that is already reflected in the house. Seeking to abolish the senate isn't an exercise in majority rule, it's just disenfranchising the minorities that exist.
Edit to directly answer your question:
Should we care about the states or the people in the states?
We should care about both, given that we are a nation comprised of 51 smaller governments. It's asinine to assert that those governments don't matter on the federal scale. We have a system established already that cares about both. Axing the part of that system that keeps the most populous areas from getting everything they want is not the solution you think it is.
I chose to pose this hypothetical as a separate comment to better illustrate my point:
Why is it that proposing abolishing the senate only invokes the idea of stopping the minority from having authority over the majority and not the other way around? It needs to be said that the senate is just as much a check on the house as the house is the senate.
Let's say the house is the only voting body of the legislature. What is to stop them from imposing a 50% tax on all states under a certain population limit, paid directly to the other states? Obviously this benefits large swaths of the population, so their representatives vote unanimously yes. Now it doesn't matter how many representatives lower populated areas have because they will always be outnumbered.
So are you proposing that it's fair for extortion to take place in that manner? Because without an equal vote to be able to defend themselves on a more level playing field, you're inviting that kind of power imbalance.
Frankly, that's a ridiculous scenario. States are an artificial construct. There's no reason California couldn't be split into five states so they can get more senators, and there's no reason tiny east coast states couldn't be merged together. It's just a matter of political will. States rights do nothing to benefit the individuals living in those states. Often when we talk about states rights, states are imposing some kind of oppression or restriction on their citizens, abortion being the most recent example. The Supreme Court threw it back to the states, many of which banned it immediately.
The states don't matter! They're overgrown, glorified municipalities. If we are going to redesign the system, we need to reduce their power all together. States are a relic of a colonial system founded by the British, where each colony was individually granted a charter, and a of a constitution written at the same time the Holy Roman Empire was alive.
What stops ridiculous, punitive laws from being passed? What stops them from being passed now? The courts, for one, and the federal government. Often it's the states that are trigger happy in committing some kind of mayhem.
We've lived with states for so long that we've been gaslit into thinking that their existence is in our best interest. While states might be useful in some form, like in organizing regional infrastructure projects, their power should be diminished, and they are not deserving of house on par with the house of the people.
Of course, Congress is in need of other dire reforms as well. It should be bigger, for one, and first past the post should be replaced with some kind of alternate system (perhaps California-style jungle primaries?).
I believe the prompt was to reform the constitution, not the system. In case you forgot, or don't know, the states ratify the constitution. Not the other way around.
In a perfect world, sure. States need not be framed as rigid individual governments. In a scenario where the fed is overthrown and the states are intact, there's nothing stopping the states from just saying "nah, we'll form our own country".
Which if that's you're goal, I guess sure. The reason Texas hasn't done that already in the current system is that the federal government is there to stop them and they don't have the numbers.
I think your assumption in this thread is that the states already don't have power, which isn't even close to true. In the meantime ranting about how states are insignificant kind of comes off as missing the forest for the trees.
Frankly, that's a ridiculous scenario
I will say that the irony of you calling a hypothetical that I made ridiculous, and then immediately presenting a more ridiculous scenario isn't lost on me. So thanks for that.
The prompt just says the revolution was successful and that now it's time for a new constitution. It's not even US-specific, so there's no reason to assume that state governments even exist in the context of the prompt, much less need to approve this new constitution. There's no need for such niceties if we're in a world where a revolution has destroyed the old regime in its entirety.
Alright, buddy. You seem really invested in creating a new reality, so you do you. I made one single point, that land based representation makes sense on the scale of most of a continent. Insisting that it doesn't is certainly an opinion.
Have a good one 👍
Funnily enough, I had this exact scenario assigned as a project in my political science class in college.
What I came up with is a lottery-based council government. The system is designed with none of the "gentleman's agreements" that the US systems seems to be based on, and assumes that if it's possible to abuse the system, then the system WILL BE abused. So it's designed to minimize the ability for the system to be abused.
You want to get rid of career politicians? Make it so they don't even have the option of running for office in the first place.
The way my system worked is that all governmental tasks are performed by a council created for a specific purpose. Every council is made up of an odd number of members, with a minimum of 5. Councils can be created to manage a geographical area, such as a state, county, or city, or for a topical purpose, for example, medical oversight. Each council has the ability to create lower councils that report to it, but only within the purview of the parent council. For example, a State Council can create a Municipal Council for a city within the state.
Sitting at the top of the entire structure is the Prime Council, which always consists of exactly 11 members. Decisions of the Prime Council are final except in the case of a supermajority overrule as detailed below.
Lower councils are subject to the decisions of higher councils with one exception - a parent council's ruling can be overturned and vacated if a supermajority* of child councils that existed at the time of the ruling vote to overturn it. For example, if a State Council outlaws gambling, but 75% of Municipal Councils vote to vacate the ruling, it is overturned. But, for example, if a Municipal Council votes to allow prostitution, the state or national council can overturn that ruling on its own. Again, however, this overturning can be overridden by a supermajority of child councils. However, the chain ends there. A parent council CANNOT vacate a supermajority vote passed by the collected child councils. Child councils must have a reason for existing can cannot be created simply to stack a supermajority vote.
A singular case can only be tackled by ONE council at a time and cannot be interfered with during the proceedings by any other council at any other level. For example, if a Municipal Traffic Council is considering a motion to raise a speed limit on a road, no other council (Municipal, State, or even the Prime Council) can interfere in that case or tell the lower council how to rule on it. However, once the case is complete and the ruling announced, THEN a higher council may take up the issue and/or vacate the lower council's ruling.
Decisions of lower councils can be appealed, but a parent council has no obligation to take up the issue and can simply deny the appeal.
Courts, as we understand them, do not exist in this system, per se. Civil and criminal cases are handled in the same way; there is no separation between the case types. Likewise, there is no differentiation between the natures of the decisions that can be handed down. Every court case is presided over by a council created especially for the purpose of hearing this single case. All the other rules surrounding how councils work detailed the Councils section still apply.
Council members are selected by lottery from all eligible citizens. Each lottery is specific to the seat being filled. To be considered eligible for a given lottery, a citizen:
Must be a member of the geographical area that the seat's council represents. For example, if the seat is on a Municipal Planning Council, the citizen must live within the city.
Must meet the qualifications defined by the higher council when this council was created. In this case, perhaps, qualification requires that the citizen hold a bachelor of science degree in any subject.
Must NOT have previously served on this same council.
Must NOT have been declared unfit for service by a medical professional.
All citizens of legal age are automatically in the lottery pool by default, and the lottery operates on on opt-out basis.
If a citizen is chosen for a council, they have the option of declining the position. In which case, another eligible citizen is selected.
Additionally, a citizen can elect to be removed from the lottery pool for any or no reason for one year at a time. This election can be renewed indefinitely, but it must be renewed UNLESS a medical professional declares that they are unfit for service. An unfit-for-service declaration can be made for a specific amount of time or on a permanent basis.
Any council member can resign their position on a council at any time before their term is over. In addition, a council member may enact the right of "Antagonistic Resignation" whereby they remove both themself and ONE other member of the council. There is no veto or override process allowed. To clarify, any council member can remove any other member from the same council by also removing themself at the same time. The replacement council member(s) will be chosen via the lottery.
A council member MAY NOT vote on or interfere with the vote on any issue the results of which they may directly benefit from. That is to say that if a council member could personally benefit from a decision on a matter, they are REQUIRED to recuse themself from the case and may not interfere with the case in any way, including but not limited to public discussion or press releases related to the matter.
A council member with a conflicting interest in a single case must either resign from the council or recuse themself from the case. As with Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member chooses ONE other council member that must also recuse themself from the case to preserve the odd number of council seats. Again, there is no veto or override process allowed. However, unlike Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member MUST choose one other member for recusement - they do not get the option to decline. If the number of active seats on the council would drop below five for this single issue, interim seats will be created and filled by lottery for this specific case only, after which the additional seats will be removed from the council and the interim council members' terms will be considered complete.
Serving on a council is a full-time job and may require taking a sabbatical from work. While an individual citizen has the ability to decline a council seat, NO other entity, individual, or organization may punish or otherwise act against a citizen for choosing to accept the responsibility of service. Therefore, it is considered unconstitutional for any entity to retaliate against a citizen for accepting a council seat, punishable by a fine of not less than 50% of that entity's yearly income. It is understood that this is a harsh penalty, and the severity and calamitous nature of it is intentional and intended to avoid even the outward appearance of impropriety or retaliation. If a citizen CHOOSES of their own accord to decline a council seat out of a sense of duty to an organization, that's allowed, but it is absolutely not acceptable for an organization to demand, tell, ask, or even imply that a seat should be declined.
It is required by law that an employee (and this shall be construed loosely, to include any person who is in any way a member of an organization) of an organization be reinstated at the end of their council service to their same position, pay, benefits, and tenure as though no sabbatical had been taken at all. This is inclusive of any required "re-onboarding" time.
Council members shall be paid the greater of 125% of their reported yearly income or 200% of the average salary of the relevant lottery eligibility pool. This shall be to incentivize citizens to fulfill their duty and serve on a council.
At any time, the citizens may petition a geographical council (Prime, State, County, Municipal, etc) for a status of Councilar No-Confidence. This petition shall require the signatures of 55% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented. Upon submission of a completed petition, the council will be dissolved, and a new council will be chosen by lottery according to all the requirements for the council being replaced. This action is automatic and cannot be vetoed or overruled.
If instead, the No-Confidence petition contains the signatures of 75% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented, the council and ALL LOWER COUNCILS created by it, directly or indirectly, are dissolved and replaced as above. This is akin to pruning a branch from a tree - every branch and leaf connected to the branch is also removed. Note that this applies to EVERY level of the system, so a No-Confidence petition signed by 75% of the citizens of the entire country and submitted to the Prime Council results in the entire system being wiped away and reset.
It went a lot deeper than that, but I've already typed a LOT and think this mostly gets the gist of it.
This is great thanks for posting.
How do you deal with apathy? Like in current political climate in which many people (all?) would decline the lottery?
People could also have lots of reasons to decline. Personal, professional, etc. What were the incentives to accept?
Well, it's multiple things.
People are paid for their time on the council, and by law the pay is AT MINIMUM 25% more that whatever you were already making, but could be considerably more depending on the pool of eligible citizens. Remember, the pay is the GREATER of 125% of whatever you were already making in your private job, or 200% of the average pay for the eligibility pool. So if you're making $40,000 per year and get called to council, you're gonna get paid a minimum of $50,000 for your term, but if the average pay for your eligibility pool is $40,000, then you're gonna be paid $80,000 for your term. It's structured so that there's always a strong financial incentive to serve.
People don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter. When you're part of a pool of 10 million people, one vote is more or less negligible. But, when asked to serve, you're now one of only a handful of votes. Maybe one of 5. Maybe one of 11. But your vote absolutely matters in a way that nobody could dismiss.
And tbh, if somebody declines, it's really not that big a deal. Eligibility pools would be big enough that a nontrivial number of people could decline the position and we'd still have plenty of eligible citizens. Worst case scenario is come kind of coordinated general strike against serving on councils, but to be fair, if the population is pissed off enough to enact a general strike in a meaningful way like that, they would have enacted a Branch No-Confidence movement long ago.
I actually started writing up a a new constitution a while ago as a sort of thought experiment. It's not finished yet but some of the highlights thus far include:
@fcSolar These are good additions to the existing constitution.
One thing I would like to add in terms of IP and Patent law is that you are free to reproduce Patented and otherwise protected physical items to any end, provided you make no profit in doing so.
This, coupled with 3D printing and future manufacturing tech, creates the foundation for a library/sharing/anarchic economy
@pinkdrunkenelephants
Right, patents are a whole separate thing. I added a clarification above that the 15 years/life is for copyright. The way I did patents is that corporations are ineligible for patents, and individuals get them for 5 years.
As long as labor is necessary, some form of market economy is likely to crop up, and as long as there's some form of market economy I'm hesitant to limit the ability for individual creators to make a living in said market economy, so I'm not sure I'd personally go for such a large carve-out from patent protections.
free to reproduce Patented and otherwise protected physical items to any end, provided you make no profit in doing so.
How would you prevent a company with gains from other means coming in and destroying a competitor only to start charging for their version after the other company goes under?
Corporations should honestly be banned outright. There's no actual reason to have them. Have workers' guilds do collective labor if it's that damn important, and ban the guilds from doing any of the evil shit corporations do.
That's just my opinion. I have a whole-ass treatise about what I'd put in a constitution and I might share it in the thread if people want to hear it.
Power doesn’t disappear. If it doesn’t exist in corporate form it’ll exist in political form.