What new law would you make?

[dimreepr]

If you had the power to create or change one law, what would it be?

I've posted in the lounge (for a bit of fun) so feel free to be creative.

Here's a starter for 10: Any money spent lobbying the government, for whatever reason, must be matched and given to their opponents. 

[Sensei]

Quote

What new law would you make?

...be smart and intelligent..

Truly intelligent entity is not greedy (so the all sins related to stealing, murdering for money, corruption, selling unhealthy stuff etc. etc. or making something for money only, are covered).

Truly intelligent entity is not harming other life forms, without absolute necessity.

Truly intelligent entity is voluntarily trying to help less intelligent life forms, without asking or expecting any acknowledgements, especially monetary gratification.

Truly intelligent entity understands less intelligent life forms and their objectives (running to be rich, running for power (politician leader), searching for the best possible sexual partner, allowing to successful sexual reproduction etc. etc.). So, truly intelligent entity understands why (temporary) sexual partner is gone (divorce) and/or had lover etc. etc.

Truly intelligent entity understands the all world around him, her or it.

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...be smart and intelligent..

Truly intelligent entity is not greedy (so the all sins related to stealing, murdering for money, corruption, selling unhealthy stuff etc. etc. or making something for money only, are covered).

Truly intelligent entity is not harming other life forms, without absolute necessity.

Truly intelligent entity is voluntarily trying to help less intelligent life forms, without asking or expecting any acknowledgements, especially monetary gratification.

Truly intelligent entity understands less intelligent life forms and their objectives (running to be rich, running for power (politician leader), searching for the best possible sexual partner, allowing to successful sexual reproduction etc. etc.). So, truly intelligent entity understands why (temporary) sexual partner is gone (divorce) and/or had lover etc. etc.

Truly intelligent entity understands the all world around him, her or it.

 

So is your new law eugenics?

[Sensei]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So is your new law eugenics?

The future looks very dark when you realize that everybody is working on versatile A.I. (aka A.G.I.), which in the blink of an eye will overpass the all living life forms on the Earth... You all will be long time gone, when I will have "headache" caused by it..

 

[koti]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The future looks very dark when you realize that everybody is working on versatile A.I. (aka A.G.I.), which in the blink of an eye will overpass the all living life forms on the Earth... You all will be long time gone, when I will have "headache" caused by it..

 

I'm not sure if slaves are allowed to have headaches  

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you had the power to create or change one law, what would it be?

I've posted in the lounge (for a bit of fun) so feel free to be creative.

Here's a starter for 10: Any money spent lobbying the government, for whatever reason, must be matched and given to their opponents. 

Mandatory complex psychological IQ tests (like the ones CEO's of large companies take) for politicians. 

[Sensei]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

Mandatory complex psychological IQ tests (like the ones CEO's of large companies take) for politicians. 

..you're just repeating my wish..

(it's from 2016, not the first one, but that is what Google showed the first)

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Sensei

[Curious layman]

All news must be independent from advertising, un biased, and non profit.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

All news must be independent from advertising, un biased, and non profit.

One amendment: and equally divided between good and bad news.

[koti]

39 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..you're just repeating my wish..

 

Gee I’m so sory Sensei, please forgive me. I promise I’ll google first next time before posting to make sure Sensei hasn’t posted it already 3 years ago somewhere on the internet.

[dimreepr]

Anyone espousing hatred for another group/community of people will be made to live with and depend on that group/community of people for at least a month. 

[MigL]

So I've gotta live with and depend on murderers, child molesters, rapists, indiscriminate suicide bombers and Nazis for a month ?
Seems like an unusually harsh punishment.

I might even be forced to live with and depend on people who post silly ideas on internet forums ?
( you change people's attitudes with education, not laws )

Edited July 13, 2019 by MigL

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

So I've gotta live with and depend on murderers, child molesters, rapists, indiscriminate suicide bombers and Nazis for a month ?
Seems like an unusually harsh punishment.

I might even be forced to live with and depend on people who post silly ideas on internet forums ?
( you change people's attitudes with education, not laws )

You could try understanding them, rather than hating them; besides, what better way to learn a language than immersing yourself in their culture? 

You can hate what they do, and at the same time understand why they do it.

Edited July 13, 2019 by dimreepr

[Danijel Gorupec]

Law1 (to combat impulsiveness of common people): referendum questions must come in pairs - each part of the pair is to be composed by opposing proponents. The vote counts only when both questions in the pair are voted adequately.

Law2 (to combat short-aiming policies of politicians): salaries of politicians holding office extend to a period even years after they left the office and depend on measurable performances of the state and society (like GDP, life expectation, etc..)

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Law1 (to combat impulsiveness of common people): referendum questions must come in pairs - each part of the pair is to be composed by opposing proponents. The vote counts only when both questions in the pair are voted adequately.

That seems to invalidate the option to abstain, which is a vote.

6 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Law2 (to combat short-aiming policies of politicians): salaries of politicians holding office extend to a period even years after they left the office and depend on measurable performances of the state and society (like GDP, life expectation, etc..)

The problem here is, ones future depends on the performance of those one has no control over, and so is no different to what we have now; it may seem to encourage a less short term thinkspeak but ultimately we're left with the same problems.

 

[Danijel Gorupec]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That seems to invalidate the option to abstain, which is a vote.

The problem here is, ones future depends on the performance of those one has no control over, and so is no different to what we have now; it may seem to encourage a less short term thinkspeak but ultimately we're left with the same problems.

 

My proposals would certainly need some refining

However, regarding my second proposal... I actually think that politicians are responsible for the future, even including who replaces them. For example I consider Obama positive and intelligent politician, but I find him unsuccessful about securing continuation if his policies. Maybe he was simply not smart enough to recognize that society tends to spring back... A more extreme example: Marcus Aurelius was considered a smart and wise ruler, yet he secured his son as his successor... shouldn't he 'suffer' for his decision (if he continued to live) by receiving smaller salary?

(But anyway, my proposal is limited to certain number of years - depending on the inertia of the macroeconomic cycles - not more than that.)

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I actually think that politicians are responsible for the future,

They are but only theirs and that's where it all breaks down; unfortunately it's our best option, unless we can figure out how to elect a benign dictator. 

[Phi for All]

Agreeing to live cheek by jowl, be vaccinated, obey laws, support the economy, help others, and generally help keep the place clean, all those sacrifices we make for our societies should have clear and specific benefits, other than potential. I'd pass a law guaranteeing a certain minimum subsistence level so members of my society had no real need to resort to criminal behavior to feed their families. I'd like to see what relieving that stress would do to other elements of our lives. 

[MigL]

And what if someone decided not to abide by these laws you propose, Phi ?

Would you cast them out of your society ?
Equivalent to immigration laws targeting those who don't share your values.
( are you one of D Trump's advisors ?  )

Would you fine them ?
In which case you re-introduce the financial hardships which cause the 'resort to criminal activities to feed their families'.
( also, a very simplistic analysis for criminal activity; there are many other causes )

Would you imprison them ?
I've read your railings against the American prison system enough times to know you don't favor this approach.

Would you subject them to endless 'forced' lecturing in an attempt to educate them ?
As these laws have 'clear and specific benefits' already, this is equivalent to brainwashing to your point of view.

Have I missed any other options ?
 

[Phi for All]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

And what if someone decided not to abide by these laws you propose, Phi ?

Would you cast them out of your society ?
Equivalent to immigration laws targeting those who don't share your values.
( are you one of D Trump's advisors ?  )

Would you fine them ?
In which case you re-introduce the financial hardships which cause the 'resort to criminal activities to feed their families'.
( also, a very simplistic analysis for criminal activity; there are many other causes )

Would you imprison them ?
I've read your railings against the American prison system enough times to know you don't favor this approach.

Would you subject them to endless 'forced' lecturing in an attempt to educate them ?
As these laws have 'clear and specific benefits' already, this is equivalent to brainwashing to your point of view.

Have I missed any other options ?
 

Wow, what a load of straw-filled crap, MigL! I only proposed the one law. It's my hope it will show us all who really wants to be a criminal, and who was pushed there by circumstances. I didn't change anything else, so if someone feels the need to steal after their basic needs are met, hopefully they'll have their pick of empty prison cells. As always, my "basic needs" includes lots of free access to accumulated human knowledge by formal education. 

I have no problem imprisoning criminals. I think it's SO important, in fact, that we should take public responsibility for ALL actions of our justice system. Introducing profit and private contracting when determining someone's guilt and whether or not to curtail their freedom is cowardly, corrupt, and inhumane. My "railings" against the US prison system are all about favoring a people-as-commodities business model, and to me it's little different than sex-trafficking or slavery. 

Please notice I didn't accuse you of supporting slavery or sex-trafficking, even jokingly.

[MigL]

Don't go getting all upset.
( note that I don't call your opinions 'crap', but I did think your first line was a group of laws)
I simply pointed out that 'proposing' a law means specifying the repercussions of breaking that law.

Yours was just a convenient example, but others, in this thread, have already proposed other 'laws'; all without specifying the consequences of non-abidance.
Laws are supposed to make society more civil and equitable.
What will enforcing that law do ?

Edited July 15, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

New law? How about not going out of your way to offend people on the internet and in parallel not going out of your way to feel offended. 

[MigL]

I believe Phi can speak for himself, if he was offended.
( and if he was, I apologize, that was not my intent )
Is that where this forum is headed ?
opposing views are not tolerated because they may offend ?
Kind of takes the fun out of discussion, does it not ?

Get off your high horse, INow.
My right to an opinion supersedes, and trumps, your right not to be offended.
( are you the science Forums thought police ? )

Edited July 15, 2019 by MigL

[J.C.MacSwell]

Law of gravity...though I'm probably only looking at the "upside" of the changes I'd make...

[OldChemE]

Those who pass laws must be 100% subject to the same laws.  For example, Retirement systems and medical care for legislators and government officials have to be within the Social Security and Medicare systems.  If they had to depend on it they would be more likely to try to get it right.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Get off your high horse, INow.
<...>
are you the science Forums thought police ? 

Dafuq?