• smiling_big_baby_boy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Amerikkka should not exist. It must be abolished. There are concessions the State & capital will adhere to when we mobilize, but revolution will never be on the ballot.

    Domination is a byproduct of coercive hierarchy. To free ourselves from domination we have to be strategic in how we interact with systems of power. Non-reformist reforms can improve our material conditions in the short term, but true liberation is only achieved when we abolish all States, abolish Capitalism and abolish hierarchy.

    We don’t have to bargain for our humanity. We have the capacity to collectively organize and care for ourselves and the environment.

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Three the most important things are missing:

    • abolish home education;
    • mandatory elementary education;
    • get rid of multiple-choice tests.

    Most of the changes won’t matter if people are uneducated or easily misled.

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

      wonder if there is evidence that these steps are effective at improving education outcomes?

  • Sagrotan@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    How about a wall around the crazy states, everyone can go and come for some years, after that, close it. Let them drown in guns and bubbles, I say. - a joke, apparently. I like the list, maybe fight all the cults where old guys marry several underaged girls, too. Oh yeah, they still exist.

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

      re: wall

      careful lol i recognize this is a joke coming from a good place probably but this is verging on a fascist talking point. trans people being abused by the florida government and children being murdered in texas schools have a right to safety, not to be simply ignored with the opportunity to abandon their home in a few years.

  • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago
    • ranked choice voting - ok I think we can agree here
    • Mandatory voting - how? Currently voting is handled state by state, you want to make the federal government take that over? What would the punishment be for not voting? Frankly I disagree with this
    • Universal vote by mail - even more how? Again, federal takeover of voting process? How do you ensure no votes are lost especially when someone will be punished for not voting?
    • Voting day national holiday - definitely agree.
    • Legalize marijuana - this takes a lot more than just saying “marijuana is legal now.” Are previous marijuana related convictions going to be overturned, if so how? Are marijuana sales going to be regulated? If so how?
    • Legalize prostitution - similar questions as with marijuana
    • Revert citizens United - certainly agree here but that’s a big fuckin how? It was explicitly the supreme court overruling a law passed by Congress. Amend the Constitution to say something explicit?
    • Abolish corporate home ownership - very strange stuff here because you start touching on the above, too. Maybe more you’re looking to cancel corporate personhood but that comes with a huge amount of problems too
    • Abolish electoral college - sure why not if you’ve solved the voting issues above
    • Abolish gerrymandering - this is what made me make this response in the first place. You can’t just say “abolish gerrymandering” without some plan for it. That’s like saying “abolish borders” like it’s meaningful. How? Who decides what districts look like? Will there still be districts? If not how will representation be determined?
    • Abolish filibuster - I think the filibuster is fine. If everything else on this list goes through, hopefully we have meaningful ways of ousting useless obstructionist politicians instead
    • Merge Senate into house - why? What does this solve?
    • Remove house rep cap - FUCKING agreed. The cap is unconstitutional and absurd
    • Universal healthcare - lots of hows here too but Obamacare was a good start and I’m down with single payer
    • Universal basic income - how much? Does it count toward the 50k below?
    • Income up to $50k untaxed - fine. I also think any monetary amount in the legislature should be increased by the CPI automatically every year. Fines, limits, payouts, etc.
    • Ban tax prep - hmm ok
    • IRS files taxes for citizens - how does this work? Is tax code flattened to make it so citizens have no choices to make? Do things like tax credits for buying solar panels go away?
    • Vat for luxury items - who decides what’s luxury?
    • Supreme Court 15 year limit - disagree, the whole point of lifetime terms is to prevent getting what’s yours and getting out.
    • Increase highest bracket tax - sure why not
    • Collateral for loan is realized gain - expand?
    • Abolish PACs and lobbying
    • Politicians banned from stocks - so they can’t own shares of any companies? Or they just can’t trade while in office? Does this go for any elected official? More than just elected officials?
    • Municipalize Internet - at a minimum declare it a utility. What’s the rest of the plan?
    • Abortion constitutional right - I’d argue it already is one, though the supreme Court evidently isn’t in agreement. An explicit “bodily autonomy” amendment would be nice. Add a right to privacy to that too, expanding on the 4th.
    • Ban tipping - idk if I agree with trying to codify what should be a cultural change, but I’m generally on board with the Idea. There’s a million loopholes to close in any language to this effect
    • free financial education - just like… Government funded seminars? Mandated high school courses? What do you take out to fit this in?
  • CaptainProton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    MANDATORY voting… Let’s be real, we have people who are unable to read the candidates’ personal statements, you really want them voting?

    That’ll be used to get President Camacho legislating Mandatory plant watering using Gatorade.

  • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Russia just did three day voting on friday, saturday and sunday to make sure that both 9-5 and 2 over 2 could have a day off to vote. The downside is that it was very expensive as the staff gotta be paid more than thrice the amount, it was very taxing on volunteer observers, and ultimately useless as they’ve made up whatever numbers they wanted using the unverifyable electronic voting in the end.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, lmao, but can’t deny Russia has some nice things, even though by having those it is shooting itself in the foot. Like 2012 elections where they’ve basically said “Look, we have the entire election committee in the bag - еhey can draw us whatever results we want. But, let’s try to legitimize those elections in the eyes of the people! Let’s put a camera on every single polling station and let anyone watch them online, so that everyone can see how fair our elections are!”. As you might imagine, during the election, all social medias got completely flooded by recordings of voting fraud… And yes, people instantly noticed that the price for those cameras was like 10x of their market value, with 90% of costs landing straight into government officials pockets…

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

      The United States does not have an official language. English is the most widely used language in the U.S., and some states designate it as their official language. usa.gov

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

      I will consider this for v4, although I’m still torn on whether that’s a good idea. It would give religious entities a direct reason to influence politics even more. Any good reasons to the benefit other than more tax revenue?

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It would give religious entities a direct reason to influence politics even more.

        They’re already influencing politics, and there’s nothing being done to stop them. There’s no reason to believe that they will stop or slow down.

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

          Yea after more research this is the conclusion I’ve come to. I think ending the tax-exempt status of religious entities is the best solution to stop the problem.

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

            i think there is potential to do one better and find a more productive solution. start a crackdown, investigate religious entities that are clearly making a profit from rental land. threaten them with removal of tax exemption. investigate institutions that participate in political activity. threaten them with taxes.

            if the IRS would start doing this for all the ultra wealthy, this will be a natural antecedent to that process.

            i don’t see why it has to be an all or nothing deal, unless i am missing something huge.

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

              Nope, that would be definitely seen as religious persecution. Only way is to equally end all religious tax exemptions simultaneously.

              • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                oh sorry there’s another key fact to this, religious institutions are tax exempt under 501©(3) in the same way as all other charitable organizations.

                so going after “religious organizations” already means you are going to have to define which 501c3s are “allowed” or not—and unfortunately there’s a lot of crossover of semi-but-not-really religious groups. so any attempt at un-tax-exempting churches is going to look like persecution to some because the line is going be drawn somewhere. think of yoga or mindfulness studios, plenty of which are 501c3. are they religious? well, yeah, often. all of them? certainly not. so how do you choose? in any raw “tax the church” scenario you end up litigating what consitutes “religious” or not—which looks like ( and arguably might be) proto-persecution.

                so, investigate the profit. publish the documents showing a church breaking its 501c3 requirements. give them 180 days to knock it off or something, then tax them like the rest of us. you’ll probably also catch some non-religious 501c3s doing shady stuff as well—and all the better.

                hope this makes sense.

                edit: i guess the other assumption i made is that we don’t want to just… tax all non profits. i hope we both can agree that would be shitty lol.

                edit 2: ok you don’t make that assumption, so there we go.

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

                  think of yoga or mindfulness studios, plenty of which are 501c3

                  They shouldn’t be tax exempt either. If they generate profit, they should pay tax on it. Subsidies are used to benefit specific activities, and they are easier to investigate for fraud as to whether the subsidy is spent as intended.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 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
      ·
      4 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
        ·
        4 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

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

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

    • Addv4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Checks and balances would be the executive and judicial branches, not the senate.

      • Wooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        You think the executive has power? Haha

        No senate has powers beyond policy, inquiry committees to reviel corruption ect list goes on. Checks Nd balances

        • Addv4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, that is the original meaning of having three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. If any of them are not doing their job the other two branches are supposed to hold them accountable (supposed to being the operative term here). I was just saying that the senate was not established as a system of checks and balances against the house of Representatives, but rather as a compromise so that smaller states wouldnt necessarily be completely beholden to one’s with much larger populations.

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

    mandatory voting

    what the fuck lmao? where did this come from, genuinely asking this is so authoritarian and out of place among the rest of the stuff

    • noisefree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Australia has had mandatory voting for eligible voters (18+) for a long time. It works like this:

      Prior to elections, the Australian Electoral Commission updates the electoral roll of all eligible voters. On election day, voters have their names crossed off the roll at whichever polling place they attend.

      After the election, the electoral roll is cross-checked against voter records. Anyone who didn’t vote and can’t provide a valid reason (for example - illness, living remotely, religious beliefs) is issued a $20 fine by the AEC. If not paid, this can escalate to further fines of around $180 plus court costs if convicted.

      Over 180,000 penalty notices were issued after the 2022 federal election to enforce the compulsory voting laws. While controversial to some, the system has maintained over 90% voter turnout in Australia for nearly a century.

      A similar system would probably moderate political extremes in the US. I think any fine that is used as a means of enforcement needs to be scaled to the means of the individual being fined in order to not disproportionately target lower wealth individuals (but an elimination of the enforcement fine completely for the lower end of the wealth scale would maybe ironically result in less from that group voting and thus give them disproportionately lower representation in outcomes).

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

        thanks for this, provided a lot of insight. for those interested, $20 AUD = $13.06 USD.

        i find that this change only might be useful in the US, especially if introduced gradually and after other measures such as a voting holidy (very important!) and vote by mail rather than all-at-once, but i think is less tenable as a position than in Australia due to the following differences:

        • class: the USA generally has a significantly larger wealth gap than Australia; this directly relates to the fee and i agree with your assessment that any fines should be appropriately scaled; still a concern
        • staus quo: the longevity of the policy indicates that the country has the voting infrastructure to handle a 100% turnout without unintentional disenfranchisement, long travel times or long wait times
        • population distribution: this is a lot different in the US and again affects infrastructure. we already know that low income areas are subject to the worst of wait times, travel times, and environmental conditions while voting so it’s super important to be concious of what CV is doing for those populations. vote by mail aids this but is still a concern.

        conclusion: compulsory voting, in my opinion, should not be on this list because it is nowhere near as effective nor feasible as the other election measures already listed.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nothing screams authoritarianism quite like having to spend 10 mins at a local school on a Saturday, once every couple of years, and drawing a big old big on the ballot paper.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        my comment was a genuine question please respect that.

        what is the method of enforcement? like if it’s prison, or even time in court. yeah that’s weird and it gives authoritarianism vibes.

        if it’s a fine, what is the price point? what about those who cannot afford to travel to vote nor to pay? and what is stopping the wealthy from just paying the fine and skipping elections anyway?

        or like what other options of enforcement are there? i just don’t think making voting mandatory is at all needed to ensure free and fair elections and it just has an icky vibe to it.

        edit: also you say “every couple years.” are you aware that elections are held several times per year in most parts of the US? or are we just making federal elections mandatory?

        edit 2: you say “10 minutes.” when waiting times for voting of 30 minutes or even an hour are not rare. so what is the solution there?

        edit 3: what about individuals whose religious convictions forbid them from participating in polls? does this not violate their constitutional rights?

        edit 4: doing my due diligence and found that…

        We empirically explore the effects of a sanctioned compulsory voting law on direct-democratic decision making in Switzerland. We find that compulsory voting significantly increases electoral support for leftist policy positions in referendums by up to 20 percentage points. (Michael M. BechtelDominik HangartnerLukas Schmid)

        …which is cool and admittedly something i was unaware of. nevertheless i still find that the means of obtaining this end questionable.

        • p3n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think I have a solution, hear me out: The penalty for missing a mandatory vote is you don’t get to vote.

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

          Jail time? Tell me you’re American without telling me you’re American… I happen to be one of the dozens of people who do not live in the US, so my state and local elections are at the same time, and federal is usually in between. They group them together because efficiency. Pretty sure the penalty in every developed economy is a small fine equivalent to a parking ticket. I don’t know exactly, because I’ve been postal voting for a decade due to my debilitating case of “religious reasons”, so I get my ballot in the mail a week in advance, and If I didn’t want to vote I’d just mail it back empty (free fyi). I also voted from my phone at a foreign airport one time. Pretty sure I’ve missed one too, and know several people in their 40’s and 50’s who’ve never enrolled, never voted, and never been fined. Turns out “mandatory” is pretty loose when you aren’t living in a dictatorship.

          The argument FOR mandatory voting is to encourage political parties to reach out and engage all adults (e.g. “we the people”), instead of focusing their policies, campaigning, and financing on specific subsets of the population, or specific geographies (e.g. electoral college), or engage in other methods like voter disenfranchisement, etc, etc — basically to mitigate against the USA’s brand of bastardized anti-democracy, and authoritarianism, from happening.

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

            so… mandatory voting for you isn’t actually mandatory voting, it’s in fact a much broader series of measures aimed to reduce obstacles to voting and putting the onus of the election on the government rather than the people. got it, and i like that.

            heads up that other comments here swayed my opinion but yours have been truly just disrespectful and unhelpful.