• DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    #1. Truly abolish slavery. #2. Change the legal system from punishment to rehabilitation. #3. Congress gets minimum wage. #4. Minimum wage and unemployment must be a livable wage.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    All the points are nice but the plan does not “make sense” in the sense that it will probably never happen (at least within our lifetimes).

    • cryptosporidium140@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      We need a new country with a fresh constitution based on these ideals and what we’ve learned since the last one. Like what the US did to the British in 1776, but again and better

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t really see “new countries” being a thing in that way ever again. The USA was new because a “new” piece of land was literally found (well obviously it was already found by other people but you get what I mean).

        There is no new land to find today. You can’t just set off and create a new country - all of the land is already taken. You’ll need to work within the confines of the current countries and try your best to improve them gradually.

        At least, any other approach would probably be very bloody…

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I mean, the US was just a colonial state that broke ties to the british monarchy, and that shit happens all the time, so I think through that method, there’s still a pretty good chance. If you’re talking more about like, the establishment of the US as a state through the genocide of the native peoples, intentional or otherwise, I’d say, sure, yeah, that’s hopefully never gonna happen again, but general independence movements happen all the time.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago
    • internet listed as an essential utility like water, power, and phone services
  • distantsounds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m 90-95% on board, which is astounding considering the current options. Now fleshing out the legislation to make this transition possible…

    • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Exactly my thought. This may as well be a list that has one bullet point “* fix America” without a lot more detail on most of these

  • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s the gerrymandering thing though. When done in good faith it can give a voice to minorities. When done in bad faith… well, you’ve seen what happens. Point is it’s a double edged sword.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Mostly good stuff. I don’t think I’d merge house and Senate. Some of them need more constraint, like I’d legalize prostitution, but only if it’s regulated like restaurants (health inspectors, workers rights, etc.).

    • Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is federally legal to prostitution. Just every single state outlaws except nevada.

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      What is your solution the massively disproportionate representation in the senate then? There are currently around 66.7 Californians for every Wyomingite. Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate? And yes, legalization would occur with reasonable regulations which would make sure the industry is safer for all those involved. I tried to keep the list as concise as possible for each issue reformed.

      • hakase@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.

        Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?

        Yes.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.

          This is funny, it’s like an self soothing mantra. I’ll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Beyond what you’ve stated about the disproportionate nature of the Senate, what exact legislative problems are you attributing to the existence of the Senate, and its disproportionate nature? And why do you think a purely proportional body will solve said issues? I’m also curious what you believe the purpose of the Senate, or a bicameral legislature in general, is.

            I’m not trying to be accusatory in my probing, I’m simply curious what your exact rationale is ☺️.

            • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on. That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance

                What do you mean by “artifical balance”?

                and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on

                What do you mean, exactly? Bills are debated as they are presented [See 7.6 and 8.1 of the Senate Manual].

                That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.

                I don’t understand this point. If you want a senator to introduce a bill regarding the legalization of marijuana, then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.

                • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I don’t understand this point.

                  Yup, you don’t.

                  then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.

                  🤡

      • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Do you think wyoming deserves to be a state? Every state gets the same representation in the Senate and I think that’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair that the proportional side of the legislature isn’t proportional anymore, though, and fixing that goes a very long way.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          States don’t deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.

          • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.

            • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.

              • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.

                • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don’t give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body, it’s just two per state. They aren’t doing things like setting funding/budgets. Congress (the house of representatives) is designed to do that, though that needs some tweaking.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body

          Both the house and senate vote to pass bills. The disproportionate population increases have led to less representation of citizens in more populated states.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            But the original states didn’t have balanced populations, the founders knew that, but they still set it to be two senators per state. The house is scaled by population.

            • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              They did that for as part of a negotiation though. The less populous states refused to join the union without something like the Senate.

              To me it’s an outdated concept because states are much less independent now than they were back then. And we have a national identity that didn’t exist during the revolution.

      • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        There are other proposals to solve the Senate’s disproportionate nature, such as apportioning Senate seats by state population. Most proposals I’ve seen for that would leave the Senate with a little more than a hundred seats (with a minimum of 1 seat per state), which would (mostly) solve the problem and make it closer to the house in terms of proportionality. Of course, it all depends on the exact implementation.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          What’s the purpose of the senate at that point? Seems redundant, like having two house of representatives.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            That is in fact the point. It’s about checks and balances to stop bad actors from completely changing all of the rules the moment their party is in power. Of course, that’s completely pointless in a 2 Party system anyways and we should really reform campaign finance and election laws surrounding how to get on the ballot.

      • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’d suggest a “universal basic income” be labelled something like “American Citizen Permanent Fund” or something like they did in Alaska with the “Alaska Permanent Fund”.

        • FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Seize the means of production and call it “freedom eagle burguer act” and everything is fine

    • Doombot1@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Somehow the IRS knows to come after everyone for taxes - they don’t typically miss people. So maybe something somehow like that?

      Additionally, no ID renewal without proof of having voted/a valid exception (e.g. out of country)

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      A benefit rather than a detriment. Have a benefit offered only to those who have voted in the past election. It could be even paired with the universal basic income, an extra $100 added to your monthly UBI if you are a registered voter who has voted in the most recent election. With universal vote by mail, election day being a holiday, and plenty of early voting days leading up to the election there would be no excuse to not vote.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure it would be a good idea, even if it’s a benefit instead of a detriment.

        Ignorant or apathetic voters with no stake in or care for politics will just vote to obtain benefits without doing any research beforehand. That leads to them either voting for the first person on the ballot or the name they hear the most. If catering to those voters becomes a campaigning tactic, the system will probably devolve back into a popularity contest.

  • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I like a lot of your proposals,but I don’t think they will fix everything. Certainly an improvement though.

    I don’t think the supreme court changes would fix issues with the court, and I think a 15 yr. limit could make it worse.

    Each presidential term would get 2-3 nominations per term, allowing them to establish a majority if elected for 2 terms. Considering how powerful the court is, allowing a president to establish a majority simply by being in office for 2 terms isn’t great.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I would add:

    Equal Rights Amendment

    Reverse Shelby County v Holder

    Reverse District of Columbia v Heller

    Add ethics code for Supreme Court with enforcement authority

    Discharge federal student loan debt and regulate higher education costs

    Demilitarize police

    Ban property tax based school funding

    Abolish the death penalty

    Federally mandated paid vacation, paid sick leave, overtime over 40 hours, and a ban of right-to-work laws.

    Allow the Army Corps of Engineers to repair and maintain infrastructure.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Instead of banning tipping, the law should maybe require to include all costs. This should not just apply to stuff served, but anything.

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Banning tipping in restaurants implies that servers would need to be paid a fair wage without needing tips to make up for a lack of wages. Menu prices would incorporate those costs. Tipping in restaurants is the most invasive which is why I chose restaurants specifically.

      • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        So instead of banning tipping you mean removing minimum wage exceptions for tipping.

        Fwiw a lot of restaurants worldwide are starting to include an obnoxious 12+% “service charge” that can be “removed” if you have a complaint. Basically, enforced tipping that wouldn’t be changed by your “ban tipping” plan.

        I definitely agree hard with more emphasis on removal of after-the-listed-price fees

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes, ban minimum wage exceptions and service charges. Also I think taxes should be included on the prices of grocery store items.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          you are correct. “ban tipping” is not an actionable platform and leaves too many variables up for abuse.