Open carry of guns… no
Open carry of booze… yes
Let’s party!
open carry of a more interesting drug that isnt so toxic maybe lol
Sure! Bring enough for everyone!
Let the robots be in charge. They can’t do any worse.
Depends who they were trained by
“OpenAI’s GovernGPT 11 gets better economic results than Meta’s ‘LincolnBot’, more at eleven”
Actual human rights
A universal right to purchase, own, sell and (if applicable) conceal carry any weapon that is allowed to be used by the nation’s military, without any kind of permit or registration. Also, explicitly prohibit military conscription and legally equate it to slavery.
I have to vastly disagree with this. The argument hat a gun is a necessity is disingenuous at best.
I love my guns, but too many fuckwads treat it like a toy or some sort of social justice equalizer. It has been proven to me time and again that we cant trust people with unfettered access to fire arms.
Y’all can’t even have political discourse without being violent. So nope, you don’t deserve to have the right to bear arms. (I mean “you” collectively and include myself in this hypothetical).
You are not supposed to operate a car without a license but somehow, trying to regulate guns is big brother trying to take away muh freedoms.
It just doesn’t stand up to actual critical thought.
Y’all can’t even have political discourse without being violent. take away muh freedoms
I understand why my message might suggest that I am American, but I am, in fact, not. I won’t go into details to avoid doxxing myself, but I live in a country with strict gun laws, and, in long term, the lack of civilian firearm ownership has proven to have much worse consequences than the opposite.
To add to my original comment, I believe that “without any kind of permit or registration” should be explicitly stated in every article that guarantees some kind of right, as the lack of such statement often leads to slow erosion of the right, starting with the requirement of declaration, and then permission, which then gets more and more difficult to obtain (example: the right to public protest in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine)
lol. You have the chance to change something and your idea is: “Hey we need more shootings. Not enough children and other people get shot. Let’s increase the number”
Addendum: With a lottery allocation of ammunition. Each year, one lucky citizen recieves 1 bullet in the mail and can decide to whatever they want with it!
First No elected official is allowed to take money or goods in excess of 50% of the median salary for all workers in the country in total for the entirety of their time in office from any organization or unrelated individual nor sit on the board of any company following office. Any payments to said official totalling over 50% median salary in the 5 years prior to their election and 20 years after leaving office from a single entity must be declared. The state will provide a generous pension to ensure future employment is not a financial necessity.
These measures are intended to allow elected officials to be free from influence.
Second Any change in leadership of a political party immediately triggers a general election. Change in leadership generally means a failure of the manifesto and/or a change in the policies which were presented to the public when the leadership was elected.
Third No advisory referendum shall be conducted without the intention to act upon the outcome and therefore any referenda should only be acted upon with a super majority of 66%. Prior to action following a referendum, the winning side must demonstrate how the result will be acted upon and where negotiation with outside interests is necessary, since the outcome cannot be known at the time of the first referendum the public should be offered a second referendum to decide whether to accept the outcome.
Fourth Politicians shall be held to account for any lies or dishonesty. Burden of proof lies with the politician accused of misconduct to provide evidence for their claims which are in dispute. Therefore evidence provision at the time of any claims is encouraged and can be published to a publicly accessible repository. Punishments can range from fines to removal from office depending on the severity and frequency of misinformation.
Fifth Proportional representation she’ll be enacted to eliminate tactical voting. In addition any changes to the electoral district are subject to scrutiny by a randomly selected jury of 1000 residents in each of the affected areas. Voting by, and identity if the jurors shall be anonymous. The public may request redistricting at any time with a 2 year cool off via a petition meeting a minimum number of 100,000 signatures.
No such thing as a non democratic workplace
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!
Shout out to my boy 📢 📢 📢 A-A-ABRACADABRA HAM 📢 📢 📢
I so wanted to downvote you because that legit annoyed me lol.
The wealthiest 10% of people must donate at least 5% of their yearly earnings to a general fund for public welfare, including free food, shelter and medical aid. Business assets domestic and international are included in this calculation. Anyone who attempts to hide assets to avoid donating, even within the confines of the law, can be tried for the manslaughter of everyone who died from poverty that fiscal year.
Essentially, if you have the financial means to help people, you are legally required to.
deleted by creator
Why use the term ‘donating’? You’re describing a tax. More specifically, an income tax.
You’re not wrong, but I’d want it separate from tax so it goes directly to welfare and not just government funds. It also sounds nicer to donate than pay taxes, and you never get a donation rebate.
The word “donate” implies that it’s voluntary. If it’s enforced by the government, it’s a tax.
Tax goes to a single government spending fund, but I want this to be separate so it can’t be channelled into buying guns or whatever. It’s only welfare, and nothing else.
While donations are typically voluntary, there’s nothing stopping it from being enforced. Someone can put a gun to your head and force you to donate to charity, and that’s still a donation.
The vainglorious rich jerks might be less hesitant to part with their cash if they can boast about how much they donated, even if it was required of them. Only a little less, but that’s still good.
I have thought about it, and I am sticking with “donate” as the term.
Tax goes to a single government spending fund, but I want this to be separate
Then it’s still a tax, just a tax going to a different fund.
Someone can put a gun to your head and force you to donate to charity, and that’s still a donation.
In that case, the person holding a gun to your head stole your money and then they effectively donated it to charity.
Punish those who work hard. Reward those who don’t contribute to society. Let’s see how that helps!
It’s hilarious you think the people with the highest yearly earnings get that by working hard. Do you think Jeff Bezos has been working harder than you have this entire year in the time since you posted your comment alone?
He’s just trolling, just ignore him.
All income over $10m per year is taxed at 100%. Foreign and domestic put together.
They will just move their companies in other countries, as they do now.
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.
Make sure it’s the median wage rather than the mean wage, otherwise they can just hugely increase wages for a few outliers.
I like that idea!
That would get rid of inflation really fast as billionaires try to figure out how to deflate the currency.
I don’t think the billionaires survived the initial premise of this thought experiment.
I don’t have a problem with that
- They whom smeltith, Dealtith.
- But let they whometh deniedit, ne’er be said to’a suppliedit
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.
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.
regardless of beliefs,
What about Nazis?
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 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 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.
Housing should be affordable, and never sold as an investment
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Housing is a human right. Along with access to food, nutrition, healthcare and education.
And water + clothing
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?
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.
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
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.
How would that be determined?
Fuck, yeah!
Retail employees may legally put hands on the customer
And every person working in a call centre gets one free orbital laser shot per shift.
