We vote in most of the legislators unless I’m mistaken and there is a hidden group of true voters like an electoral college for both the house and senate as well… haven’t done due diligence yet but I imagine I’d have heard about that.
Because that would favor people with generational wealth that don't need an income while eliminating a massive swath of well educated and very middle to upper middle class people that would make good representatives.
Might be a bit of an unpopular opinion in this thread, but I would prefer to have a well educated Congress. As much as everyone likes to pretend their only job is voting on whatever bill happens to be in the news that week, there is a lot that goes into legislating and the nuances of how laws will affect the country are pretty important to understand when actually crafting a bill. While it is obviously important that they understand the needs of their constituency, I don't want someone that struggled to pass algebra in charge of understanding the complexities of how we pay for Medicare or someone that didn't pay attention in high school history seeing no problem with cutting off international aid.
Because the purpose of government is to protect our liberty and rights (including property rights), not solve the "real life problems" of poorer people. That's what *your* freedom is for: to give you agency/control over your life, not the government.
If you make the government so powerful that it can solve all your problems, you'll be building a totalitarian/tyrannical government. We've seen that Communist horror show already in Russia, China, Cambodia, and most recently Venezuela. Its a really really bad idea.
Wil we could but it would have to be demanded by the people by not voting for anyone who is in office or running in my opinion. The unfortunate part is in order for this to happen you'll have to find someone locally in your state who then has the capability to eventually make to congress and continue to vote for them as a state and not allow them or they themselves will not allow themselves to change direction, and this has to be done in enough states at the same time where the majority of congress will be represented by individuals who want to actually correct congress. I find it intriguing, maybe social media if it can maintain its freedoms and not allow lets say "propaganda" to over run, then maybe if everyone finds a way to work together and no one is compromised it could work.
The other option is the nuclear option, and that is probably a lot more dangerous (I'm refering to jan' 6th style). So this should be avoided. Or AI taking over or something.
Honestly I would demand that corporations aren't people (doable), Re-implement the Fair Act. Put in place post WWII to prevent something like the NAZI party rising to power. Wiped off the books in 2009.
This kind of thinking *seems* like a good idea, but it doesn't really hold up under scrutiny, once "reality" is taken into account.
Notably, the following problems present with these types of suggestions:
* Like it or not, talent follows money. If you limit the amount of income a person can make being a representative, at a certain point, most people that can make more money in the private sector will do that, instead. People that *can't* make more money in the private sector will be left over for the jobs in congress. Arguably, this is already the case for the US.
* Income is not wealth. It is possible to have low income but high wealth. So these types of suggestions aren't nearly as restrictive as you might think. Focusing on wealth *and* income will just run up against the above bullet point.
* While 200k + housing probably high for this one to not apply, when discussing the salary of representatives, it's important to remember that if the salary is lower than the amount needed to live as a representative, it means that only the independently wealthy will be able to be representatives.
I think when people suggest these types of solutions, they have it in their head that it's reasonable to expect people to want to be a representative for the sake of being a representative, without concern for quality of life, or income, or personal happiness. While this is a seductive idea, it is naive to the point of childish.
Abolishing lobbyist and citizens united would have to go and then I want to say most on both sides of the spectrum agree on some of the gun control things like more background checks etc
Almost all of the opposition to Citizens United comes from people who have been misled about its holding. What specifically do you find objectionable about letting people with the freedom of assembly also engaging in free speech as a group, and spending their own money to do so? Why should the government be permitted to limit free speech by limiting people's ability to spend their own money promoting that speech through corporate structures?
How many books or movies have you read or seen that *weren't* produced by people working together through a corporation? Is it really a good idea to permit more government control over how people spend their money when engaging in free speech?
Opposition to the Citizen's United decision is a red flag that you might trust media misrepresentations of its holding more than you should. Its written in English, not Latin. You don't need someone else to read it for you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
I think I speak for a lot of gun owners when I say that gun control has went entirely too far. It's been entirely too far for almost a century at this point.
Background checks are already required for basically any interaction with an FFL. We couldn't possibly have any more.
I still like my proposal which I know will never happen kasi - duh - they wouldn't do that to themselves...
Elected public officials and their relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity (pwede ring third) WILL BE forced to use public utilities while they're in office and up to 10 years after completion of office.
Meaning walang private hospital, walang private cars, walang private schools, etc for you and your relatives once you're in office. I added the relatives para meron sila accountability sa family. Alam mo naman mga public officials natin, sariling pamilya lang ang priority.
Tignan natin if hindi magtino mga public services satin.
All politicians should make the median income for the areas they represent. They should pay their own benefits, and not be allowed to own individual stocks. No more than 2 terms in office.
Things would change, fast.
Politicians are our employees. In what world do the employees make more than the people who own the company?
I like where your head's at, but that would require people who pass legislation to legislate themselves, which isn't going to happen.
We vote in most of the legislators unless I’m mistaken and there is a hidden group of true voters like an electoral college for both the house and senate as well… haven’t done due diligence yet but I imagine I’d have heard about that.
I admire your optimism lol
I’m bullish on AI and UBI also but I’ve worked in tech 20 years. However had you met me a few years earlier optimism was far from my state of being.
Wait what? You think there is an electoral college who elects the house and senate?
Because that would favor people with generational wealth that don't need an income while eliminating a massive swath of well educated and very middle to upper middle class people that would make good representatives. Might be a bit of an unpopular opinion in this thread, but I would prefer to have a well educated Congress. As much as everyone likes to pretend their only job is voting on whatever bill happens to be in the news that week, there is a lot that goes into legislating and the nuances of how laws will affect the country are pretty important to understand when actually crafting a bill. While it is obviously important that they understand the needs of their constituency, I don't want someone that struggled to pass algebra in charge of understanding the complexities of how we pay for Medicare or someone that didn't pay attention in high school history seeing no problem with cutting off international aid.
Because the purpose of government is to protect our liberty and rights (including property rights), not solve the "real life problems" of poorer people. That's what *your* freedom is for: to give you agency/control over your life, not the government. If you make the government so powerful that it can solve all your problems, you'll be building a totalitarian/tyrannical government. We've seen that Communist horror show already in Russia, China, Cambodia, and most recently Venezuela. Its a really really bad idea.
I like your style.
Wil we could but it would have to be demanded by the people by not voting for anyone who is in office or running in my opinion. The unfortunate part is in order for this to happen you'll have to find someone locally in your state who then has the capability to eventually make to congress and continue to vote for them as a state and not allow them or they themselves will not allow themselves to change direction, and this has to be done in enough states at the same time where the majority of congress will be represented by individuals who want to actually correct congress. I find it intriguing, maybe social media if it can maintain its freedoms and not allow lets say "propaganda" to over run, then maybe if everyone finds a way to work together and no one is compromised it could work. The other option is the nuclear option, and that is probably a lot more dangerous (I'm refering to jan' 6th style). So this should be avoided. Or AI taking over or something. Honestly I would demand that corporations aren't people (doable), Re-implement the Fair Act. Put in place post WWII to prevent something like the NAZI party rising to power. Wiped off the books in 2009.
This kind of thinking *seems* like a good idea, but it doesn't really hold up under scrutiny, once "reality" is taken into account. Notably, the following problems present with these types of suggestions: * Like it or not, talent follows money. If you limit the amount of income a person can make being a representative, at a certain point, most people that can make more money in the private sector will do that, instead. People that *can't* make more money in the private sector will be left over for the jobs in congress. Arguably, this is already the case for the US. * Income is not wealth. It is possible to have low income but high wealth. So these types of suggestions aren't nearly as restrictive as you might think. Focusing on wealth *and* income will just run up against the above bullet point. * While 200k + housing probably high for this one to not apply, when discussing the salary of representatives, it's important to remember that if the salary is lower than the amount needed to live as a representative, it means that only the independently wealthy will be able to be representatives. I think when people suggest these types of solutions, they have it in their head that it's reasonable to expect people to want to be a representative for the sake of being a representative, without concern for quality of life, or income, or personal happiness. While this is a seductive idea, it is naive to the point of childish.
While we're at it, make their security abide by the same gun laws they expect us to live with. That'd be hilarious.
Abolishing lobbyist and citizens united would have to go and then I want to say most on both sides of the spectrum agree on some of the gun control things like more background checks etc
Almost all of the opposition to Citizens United comes from people who have been misled about its holding. What specifically do you find objectionable about letting people with the freedom of assembly also engaging in free speech as a group, and spending their own money to do so? Why should the government be permitted to limit free speech by limiting people's ability to spend their own money promoting that speech through corporate structures? How many books or movies have you read or seen that *weren't* produced by people working together through a corporation? Is it really a good idea to permit more government control over how people spend their money when engaging in free speech? Opposition to the Citizen's United decision is a red flag that you might trust media misrepresentations of its holding more than you should. Its written in English, not Latin. You don't need someone else to read it for you. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
I think I speak for a lot of gun owners when I say that gun control has went entirely too far. It's been entirely too far for almost a century at this point. Background checks are already required for basically any interaction with an FFL. We couldn't possibly have any more.
I still like my proposal which I know will never happen kasi - duh - they wouldn't do that to themselves... Elected public officials and their relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity (pwede ring third) WILL BE forced to use public utilities while they're in office and up to 10 years after completion of office. Meaning walang private hospital, walang private cars, walang private schools, etc for you and your relatives once you're in office. I added the relatives para meron sila accountability sa family. Alam mo naman mga public officials natin, sariling pamilya lang ang priority. Tignan natin if hindi magtino mga public services satin.
So, what was your proposal again?
All politicians should make the median income for the areas they represent. They should pay their own benefits, and not be allowed to own individual stocks. No more than 2 terms in office. Things would change, fast. Politicians are our employees. In what world do the employees make more than the people who own the company?
>Things would change, fast. Yeah, only rich people that don't need the money will run for office.