/politics/ - News & Politics

WOMEN

------------=

-Women don't have the right to vote.

If you want the right to vote, you have to serve at least one year in the military and sign up for drafting.

-Marriage age is 14. The man must be at most 4 years older than the woman if she is under 18 (e.g. a 50 years old man can't marry a 14 yo girl).

Public behavior

-Intoxication in public is illegal. If you are intoxicated, you must stay in the place where you are until you sober up. Any place that serves alcohol is obligated to test customers before they leave, and call the police if they insist on leaving.

I know these are just rules, not ideology, just wanted to get them out of my chest before I get on topic.

>>7660

about the issue of drugs, I think all drugs should be legal.

The war on drugs ruined countless lives and empowered drug cartels.

IMPORTANT :

the basic nessecities of life should be free and available for every home.

1.Power (electricity)

2.Food

3.Clean water

4.Shelter

5.Communication and access to information

>>7666

so..socialism?

>>7671

Not quite,no

I think we should add the elements we need without regard to names.

Example

Some elements of socialism are good while some elements of capitalism are good, why not mix them and get a hybrid of many ideologies.

our topest priority should be the well being of people

Also today is Hotwheels birthday

>>7657

LARPing is fun man.

If you want to roleplay making an ideology I think we should restart the /sen/ board, which has been abandoned lately. I requested it be put in the sister boards at the top but it has low activity.

Otherwise, we need some kind of voting system for this. Strawpoll?

>>7673

We are not building a nation next thursday, just throwing around ideas, we can vote later but for now we just brainstorm

If I would start a new governing system, it would be having the next step for democracy.

We have the internet, we trust it enough to use it for nearly all of our banking needs, people are willing to trust it with all of their money. So its about time we also work out a system so that we can trust it with our votes. Internet voting can be made more reliable than paper voting. Sure there are some challenges that need to be looked at, for example find a way for people to actually verify their vote is counted (which we surprisingly don't have right now) while also having ensuring privacy from the state and as much privacy as possible from other people.

Next up, you need to make it that people can easily vote themselves or defer their votes for certain items to politicians of their choice and change their choice whenever they wish.

I want to enable people to vote personally on issues they themselves find very important, but also they could chose a politician per issue (say, business, environment, education, whatever) for any issue they do not personally want to vote for. You think Trump would be great on all but one issue? Have your votes linked to his for all those issues, and vote yourself or give your vote to another politician on the last issue.

Yes, there are still many things to keep in mind that need to be adressed, most of them related to either security of the system (but anybody that thinks that paper voting is not horribly corrupt already is just stupid) or to privacy (in a voting booth, at least you have some privacy of family members that may wish you to vote otherwise, but then again, anybody with power over you could force you to fotograph your voting balot when you selected his candidate of choice, making it so at the most, you can void your vote, not chose who you wish). You would mainly need harsh penalties and a high rate of finding all such abuse to stop it.

I just don't understand why we do not yet have a system in our democracy to allow people to vote themselves on issues they find important. Why do we still accept that we transfer our vote to another person, often for a 4 year+ period. Do you really trust any person to vote exactly as you would or at least in your best interest for 4 years?

>>7672

Not enough incentive IMO. I think you may be underestimating the number of people who would be happy with simple subsistence. Having these utilities guaranteed to all will invariably result in a welfare state.

>>7660

Why don't women have the right to vote?

Why the bias in marriage laws?

>>7697

All but 1.power and 5.communication?

>>7699

I would still prefer these come from private charities, but if they must come from the state I'd say food, water, shelter, and medicine. Welfare food would be absolute bare bones, like blocks of protiens/flats/carbs with basic vitamins and minerals. Welfare shelter would look like a homeless shelter instead of public housing apartments. Also, in accepting healthcare you forfeit your right to vote for the following election cycle.

>>7700

*proteins/FATS/carbs

>>7700

Perhaps even restrict freedom of speech and firearm ownership for welfare recipients.

>>7698

>Why don't women have the right to vote?

See this thread: >>4893

>>7698

>Why the bias in marriage laws?

See this thread: >>1417 . An anon makes a great argument ( >>7717 , >>7718 )

>>7663

How about certain drugs, take it on a case by case basis?

>>7663

>about the issue of drugs, I think all drugs should be legal.

the problem is you will have many people under the influence in public, robbing, assaulting, raping, driving, ..etc

Ask yourself, would you agree to have a drug addict as a neighbor? Would you feel safe for yourself, for your family?

I don't mind drugs that makes the person motionless or harmless.

>>7773

>I don't mind drugs that makes the person motionless or harmless.

This could have potential. If the government legalizes such drugs, the drug market will tank.

>>7773

>>7778

So would pot obviously be the big one for full legalization?

>>8114

Yes, but more powerful stuff need to be legalized too, as long as the person can't do shit while under their influence.

>>8120

LSD, shrooms, and acid are some more I can think of that would fit the idea. Heroin while relaxing at first would cause more harm in the long run to the user, as well as addicts who would do anything for their fix, same as crack. Angel Dust I think would be a no go, same as speed. Ecstasy is in a grey area.

>>8167

>LSD, shrooms, and acid are some more I can think of that would fit the idea.

how addictive are they? would user commit violent acts to get their fix?

>>8169

>how addictive are they?

they aren't

>would user commit violent acts to get their fix?

doubt it

>>8170

Good. So the criteria for legalizing drugs would be:

Users won't commit violent acts while under influence or to acquire them

>>8169

>>8171

That's what I was thinking, as long as the person shows no addiction symptoms or violent urges for the drug, it should be fine.

The ones I think that should still be outlawed are the drugs like cocaine, heroin, crack etc. that are known for easily addicting a user.

Thinking about it more however, how would prescription drugs like oxy's be treated, if you are not the person meant for the pills, you should be the one to face charges?

>>7773

>>7778

so i guess just ban like PCP and Bathsalts?

>>7773

>>7778

so i guess just ban like PCP and Bathsalts? i guess, or you could encourage gun ownership to the point where anyone who gets high on shit like that and starts going crazy would be killed pretty much immediately.

>>8289

>>8290

dammit wheels, fix your shit

>>8171

people will commit violent acts to acquire tangible objects, so you should make the basis of drug bans clearer, for example,

"Users will not go out of their way to obtain said narcotic any more than legitimate survival requirements (e.g. heat, water, food, medical equipment etcetera)

>>7702

never restrict FoS in any circumstances, you don't want to create a slave class, because some chucklefuck always lets them breed too much, and they escape and fuck shit up

>>8167

>>8169

ecstasy (in pingers and caps) is an amphetamine, so although it is designed to be used in non-violent raves, it can exaggerate negative emotions, can it not?

also hallucinogens are very dangerous to the user if not taken in a safe environment, so gov-sponsored "shroom-sheds" would be a good idea, kinda like what the dutch did at the raves, but in a different physical situation

Like a daycare centre for people whom temporarily see things that aren't there

>>7657

instead of democracy, just designate seperate territories for different political ideaologies

e.g. authoritarian cyberpunk metro-hell

Technically safe, if you follow the rules, which there are many

restricted democracy e.g. current middle-class suburban areas

Less restrictions, less rules, more freedom, more chances to die from own actions

libertarian/anarchist region

much less rules, much more danger, but still a little regulation for things such as murder, fraud, genocide, rape .etc

and finally, wasteland shithole

no rules, no government, just like in mad max, but people hopefully are friendly to the environment to prevent ecosystem shutdown.

Also, you will need border patrol to remove invaders and opportunistic chinese investors

>>7657

I propose to use Hoppean ancap as an exokernel and implement the rest as library ideologies ;)