Browsing social media, it’s apparent that people are quick to point out problems in the world, but what I see less often are suggestions for how to solve them. At best, I see vague ideas that might solve one issue but introduce new ones, which are rarely addressed.
Simply stopping the bad behaviour rarely is a solution in itself. The world is not that simple. Take something like drug addiction. Telling someone to just stop taking drugs is not a solution.
You want a realistic solution or a “if I had one wish” solution?
If every US Republican were to die of a heart attack right now, that would probably be the single greatest thing that could happen to our planet right now.
Your thinking is too limited.
There’s a lot of reasons why someone might choose to be a republican that has nothing to do with being a soulless monster.
A lot of them are stupid or have intestinal parasites that prevent them from thinking correctly.
And the world is not the United States, so if you have the power to wipe out an entire group of people, you should just destroy all of the assholes on the planet. Anyone who’s like more than 40% asshole just poof they’re gone.
I think I’d be in the clear cuz I believe I’m only in like the 30% range myself, but if I had to take one for the team that’s okay. (Totally not saying that just to put myself below the 40% line)
There’s a lot of reasons why someone might choose to be a republican that has nothing to do with being a soulless monster.
Ok but how do you quantify that? Same with “kill all assholes”. Doesn’t work. It’s a completely subjective label.
And like it or not the US is by far and away the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Removing Republicans effectively changes the GLOBAL political landscape.
Stopping the wealth accumulation at the top through taxes on property above a threshold.
And, supplementary:
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
You may or may not be aware that the OECD has already begun implementing something like that:
Yeah I remember reading about it. This is probably a step in the right direction without having looked at all the details
Guillotine now. Adequate tax rates moving forward.
Oh boy, I’m going to downvoted into oblivion for what I’m about to write. Here we go.
It will be about unchecked illegal immigration, so hang tight. First of all, everyone that’s trying to illegally cross borders should be sent back to the country of origin. Next, all permanent resident/citizen immigrants that break a law should be returned to a country of origin. On top of that all crimes should be treated equally, no matter who committed it.
I’ve solved it already! There’s no illegal immigration based on international law, there’s irregular immigrants.
Sending people back would cost more than welcoming them and having them pay taxes.
People can already get deported for breaking the law but it would be stupid to make it systematic no matter the law considering that locals break laws all the time and just end up having to pay a fine
all permanent resident/citizen immigrants that break a law should be returned to a country of origin.
crimes should be treated equally, no matter who committed it.
What I meant was that the “minority” offenders that cannot be sent back should be charged the same way as the “majority” of the population. Sorry for the confusion.
I think I’m MORE confused now, but I appreciate that you tried to clarify.
I can see it now. Sorry about being ambiguous. What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens, including crime punishment.
What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens
Are they not, in your country?
“Sorry Timmy, your parents drove 57 in a 55 so we’re deporting them to Somalia. I know they spent 7 years getting their permanent residency and citizenship in America but we can’t have people who break the law being allowed to stay in America no matter how minor the infraction. You can go with them or you can go to DHR.”
Dumbass.
As in “treat them better” or as in “I’ve been led to believe they’re treated better and that multiple generation citizens are treated worse”? Because seeing your comments so far I’m pretty sure you’re thinking the latter.
What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens, including crime punishment.
I’m still confused… So do you want them sent back to country of origin or not? Because that’s by definition a different treatment from 2nd generation or later citizens. Or do you want to deport 2nd generation citizens somewhere too?
Voting for people that are closest to want I think is good.
Volunteering in non-profits.
Pushing for progressive ideas at work.
Trying be an example of what I defend and explain to people around me it if they ask me, without pushing them to change, hoping that I can slowly change the culture around me without triggering mental blockers. For example when a colleague asks if I’m vegetarian, I explain that I am rather flexitarian, which means I don’t have forbidden food but I favor food with smaller ecological impact. If they seem not receptive, I’ll listen politely and not try to change their minds. If they seem receptive, I’ll show them the Poore & Nemeck studies. Sometimes just a bit of neutral information is enough to trigger a change.In short, I don’t want to be someone who just blames the governments or companies, and make no efforts otherwise. I think we need a cultural change at every stage of society.
A slow burn. Humanity is slowly wiping itself out. If this is a Q humanity test then we have failed. We need a Picard/Riker/Data/LaForge combo
Fix the electoral college by either abolishing it entirely (personal choice) or fixing the house to properly represent the population such that the senate doesn’t cause an oversized share of electoral reps. The Wyoming Rule is one option.
We could also just go back to something like one rep per 100,000 population in a state, which would in turn make the house have 3,000 members. This sounds wild until you realize Parliament in the U.K. has 650 members… representing a population roughly 1/5 ours.
Perhaps more realistic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_law
This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.
Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.
The dangers of artificial general intelligence (humans becoming even worse thinkers, dystopia, takeover) could be avoided by turning towards human collaborative intelligence augmentation.
I do honestly think empathy would be more common if access to psychedelic mushrooms was legal
Which is why it will never happen
I came for the vegan comment however as it was already there, the biggest change I could see from mass adoption of the vegan ideals are that the population would have an across the world increase in empathy to not only animals but because they aren’t murdered as part of societal norms the empathy towards and the treatment of humans is likely to increase as well. This could theoretically lead to an increase in environmental action helping climate change but also help addressed a number of socialogical issues at the same time. We are a long way from this however in the uk veganism has increased 1567% in 10 years so with this rate of change it is possible.
There’s a lot of “billionaires shouldn’t exist” and “eat the rich” sentiment out there. I often suggest jokingly that it should be legal to murder someone once they reach a certain level of wealth. It might motivate them to limit their greed at some point, perhaps be less exploitative of those who are working to generate their wealth or share more of it. And even if they pass the threshold, they may give more concern to how they treat people and how they are perceived.
Maybe not murder, but it should be legal to steal from people who have more wealth than they know what to do with. They’re hoarding wealth while some people are struggling to make ends meet.
Each year, sacrifice the 5 richest billionaires and distribute their estate to the public fund. Bam, so many problems immediately solved.
Or uh, idk, tax them properly and you achieve the same outcome without any killing.
Not that it’d ever happen though.
That’s a pretty fucked up thing to say. Is that really the world you wan’t to live in?
No, it is not the world I want to live in, but I am not convinced it would be worse than the current world.
Fuck all advertising and everyone involved in marketing.
I know how those marketing chicks look like, I volunteer as tribute for your plan.
Making it legal(or even, encouraged) to spray 1500psi water jet to anyone smoking when non-smoking people are around.
If bringing food to people is so hard, why not bring people to the food? 🤷🏻♂️
I probably whine the most about the lack of transit options in my city.
Proposed solution: Take intra-city transportation out of the control of the county, so it is run by the city instead. The county can run the buses from the suburbs, or not. We can extend the streetcar, increase bus frequency, all the stuff the city wants, that keeps getting slapped down by the county commissioners, because the suburbs don’t want buses.
Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It’s a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn’t even save jobs.
If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you’re asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that’s left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.
There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it’s going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.
No bailouts without an equivalent equity transfer to the public. If you want a bailout you need to grant the same amount of stock to the government in exchange.
Isn’t that pretty much the short version of what I said?
The problem with freezing them at their price is that that essentially becomes an interest-free loan to the company that partakes in the system.
The interest needs to be somewhat punitive.
I would say three points above the federal rate compounded daily, and they have to pay off all of the accumulated interest before they can start buying their stocks back.
