this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39310 readers
1607 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There is no objectively correct answer. Discussing and arguing in this thread is fine but don't be dicks.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 1 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)

In an absolutely wild, impossible world, my ideal society would be one where any politician or media individual instantly dies if they knowingly lie about something impactful, or make someone lie on their behalf. (You can lie about a "does this dress make me look fat" kind of thing lol)

There would be no deciding what the truth is by some individual (an opening for manipulation) it would just be an automatic instant thing, like how an object responds to a gravitational field. You let go of something, it just falls. You have power and you lie, you just die.

We could improve society so fucking much if we weren't constantly bombarded and manipulated by propaganda and wealthy/greedy individuals and were actually all operating off the same understanding of "reality."

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago

That would be pretty sweet.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Basically democratic socialism but with a few rules:

  1. No billionaires. After 500 million, it's taxed at 100%
  2. No Corporations. Private business ownership only. No Shareholders or Hedge Funds. Basically no wall street.
  3. Lobbying on behalf of an industry is banned.
  4. No party "whips" that exist to make a representative vote the party line even if they're personally disagree with the party on that particular issue. Representatives need to truly represent their constituents, not their party. In fact, fuck the entire concept of "party politics". Ditch it.
  5. By law, a representative has to have actually lived in their riding for 5 years or more.
  6. Representatives are required to spend at least 80% of their time in their constituency, in their office. It's a 9-5 job. No more of this showing up to vote bullshit and then fucking off to Mexico. You serve your constituents, and your job is to be in your office to listen to them tell you what they want 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. Otherwise, what do they pay you for?
  7. With the exception of meeting twice a year in person, most bills in congress/parliament are able to be done completely virtually. The representative studies the issue, consults with his constituents and votes accordingly. They do so without any input from their so-called peers. The only input they are allowed is from their constituents and legitimate experts in whatever field they are looking into.
  8. Representatives have a strict two term limit and an age limit.
  9. At any point, your constituents (and ONLY your constituents) can trigger a recall election due to no-confidence.
  10. You're a "servant of the people"; not the other way around. You get a working man's salary; enough to live and a small dispensation for travel expenses, office staff, etc... But using your position to enrich your own personal wealth is grounds for an immediate arrest.
[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I don't disagree with most of these. Would get rid of a ton of the seemingly parasitic portions of the US government. Aggressive term limits like that would inherently force change very quickly. I've discussed that with a very politically involved friend (far left works in DC). His argument was always along the lines of things move slow so career politician's are needed to actually enact change. If its forced to speed up though, maybe that's good? I'm not really sure honestly. One charismatic populist/small group of charismatic populist could make a huge amount of change in a short span of time. Positive or negative. I do think they should be compensated for their terms at a pretty high level though, say 200k a year with the same benefits a basic federal worker gets. With the stipulation that they can't trade or earn from a related secondary source of income while in office. We want them to be elite thinkers/doers so we should pay them that way. I really like 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. I appreciate how organized and detailed you were. Sorry my response is kinda scatterbrained.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

True about the pay.

In general I just feel like our representatives are too far removed from the people they're supposed to serve.

Here in Canada, we've had a couple of floor-crossers from the Conservatives to the Liberals, and social media is up in arms about how that shouldn't be allowed. "We voted Conservative, not Liberal". Whenever someone points out (and rightly so) that in the parliamentary system you're voting for an individual, not a party, they freak out and say that's not how it works.

They fundamentally have no idea how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

A part of that comes from an American culture bleeding up into Canada a bit, with people thinking they vote directly for the Prime Minister the same was Americans directly vote for their president. But a bigger part of it is that those representatives spend more time in Ottawa than in their own ridings. And if a representative loses their seat in an election, they can just pick a different riding where they don't even live and run again. It's ridiculous.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I like everything you're saying.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure I have a fleshed out idea of what would be my own perfect society, but I can tell you it would certainly involve zero pedophiles and mass murders in positions of power.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Hell yeah thats fair

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Does it have to be practically feasible or am I allowed to hallucinate wildly about how individuals and groups of people behave?

For practically feasible: I live in a Scandinavian country, we have it quite good by most conparisons. If I had to move I'd probably give Switzerland a try.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

The world is your oyster in this hypothetical.

[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I really like the anarchist societies dreamed up by Ursula LeGuinn. Anarres. The Kesh. Implementation does require a significant change of attitude, though.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Can you expand on them a bit? I don't mind getting a book and reading it but I'd like to hear what you like about it.

[–] IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Maybe similar usa today but with laws against advertising and marketing and political donations. No religious marketing and no money could be used for religion.

Taxed wealthy people...

And some way to not make business out of war and drugs.

Also no "entertainment" as in no art, movies, or videogame created for money... Just art for expression as a sacred release instead of as a way to make money.

Basically reduce drive for money so creation and life becomes authentic again.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

That sounds as far from the USA in it's current state as possible lol.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Something like the world in A Psalm for the Wild Built and A Prayer for the Crown Shy (Monk and Robot series) by Becky Chambers.

Half the world is left to nature, the other half is used by people in various self-sufficient villages. Walking off the path is strongly discouraged. Beaches are similarly something to be appreciated from afar.

*They all almost died because they were close to completely destroying their planet with unchecked industrialism. This society is after that, having learned from their previous mistakes. They know there must be a balance. It's a reflection on what's happening right now.

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not being able to enjoy nature sounds awful.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, you should read the book. ;)

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You're not really selling it lol

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 hours ago
[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

Interesting

[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip -5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Low freedom, low wealth disparity, high investment into social goods. I would prefer we expect people to behave and remove them if they can't/refuse, personally.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Low freedom? How does that look? Also, what does removing them if they don't behave look like?

[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip -3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It looks like being polite in public and contributing to society, or complying with mental health treatment if you can't, and leaving the town if you refuse.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Yeah didn't really answer either of my questions.