Tweet
Today, I posted the following question on AskReddit: "If you could change one law, what would it be?" Out of the 64 comments received as of press time, here are the ten best and/or most interesting responses. Drum roll, please:
10) Make the rich pay the same percentage on Social Security tax as everyone else
9) Make it illegal for Congress to spend more money than it has
8) Make raving legal in Britain again
7) Repeal the Patriot ACT
6) Make countries that want to declare war on each other go hug a tree
5) Legalize marijuana and/or all drugs (far and away the most frequent answer)
4) Make dueling legal again
3) Legalize gay marriage throughout the United States
2) Repeal the "personhood" of corporations
1) Abolish gravity
What would you like to add to the list? What’s on your mind tonight?
11 Comments
I would like to see a law created requiring all tenured and tenure-track faculty members at any university to have their primary (typically PhD) degrees awarded from public universities as a condition for the university faculty to be eligible for any Federal research grant money of any sort whatsoever.
This would drive a stake through the heart of Harvard/Yale/Stanford/etc. and place the public universities on a massively upward trajectory in terms of the investment into them, and their competitiveness. This law would represent a massive commitment to building up the public education system by the Federal government. Finally, this would be a way to push public school graduates into the highest places of power in the nation. An argument in favor of my idea is in DC right now: the Harvard Administration based out of the White House. For all its noise about wanting to reform the public education system, it hasn’t done much at all, and why would it? Its nothing but private school graduates.
sfriendly – It’s a fascinating idea that addresses a very real problem. But wouldn’t it create a two-tiered educational system of private vs. public where there’s no movement between the two?
the law I would change is that attached to taxes
the law should read, “this tax pays for this service”, when you reduce tax you must demonstrate what part of the service is going to be eliminated, when you add tax you must enumerate what service is being funded, where the excess will go and how it will be returned
then there could never be a redistribution of wealth in the form of tax give away and it would be very hard to over tax
I would have to agree with legalizing marijuana…but I’d take it one step further…I’d mandate smoking it frequently to lower the stress rate in these united states…everyone would be high and happy. LOL…ok, that was just a joke — Pretty good question!
I would amend “4) Make dueling legal again”
to
4) Make dueling banjos legal again
And I would add public campaign finance only for all offices.
I think I’m for that one…
No Bill shall be presented before the Congress or the Senate without citing the Constitutional authority of the Body in question to pass said Bill. This requirement shall apply also to any Amendments.
How about demanding that TX and PA secede, and repay their stimulus funds.
I need more time to consider the possibilities, but three pop into my mind:
a) No longer allow a President’s Executive Order (unless designated as merely a way to effect existing Law) to carry the effect of Law without Congress also signing onto it.
b) Tax all personal incomes, whether earned or interest/investment, at the same rate. In that way we can move toward a simpler single-rate system which reflects the Constitutional mandate to ‘equal treatment under the law’.
c) Legalize personal possession & use of marijuana.
I’m with you on B and C; A I would have to think about.
I’d go with #2…and tie that in with campaign financing laws that remove them from “Corporate Campaign Contributions are Free Speech”. Lobbyists and corporations would not be able to finance campaigns except in the most obtuse ways. It makes no sense that companies who are largely owned, influenced or provide profits to a foreign nation or banker are allowed to have such a massive influence on our politics. But it makes no sense even if it were an entirely US run and managed group. Laws #7, #5, #9 and #10 are largely effects of or blocked by the wealthy concealing their corporate contributions through PACs. Get rid of #2 and limit personal campaign contributions to perhaps $5000 total or $1000 per candidate and you’d transform society. There’d be less propaganda for war to fund the military contractors, less revolving door politicians-lobbyists, less lobbyist influence (what could they offer in exchange for the pork, war, etc.), etc.
Remember that the bans on marijuana and the push to end public transportation systems in urban areas was the result of the synthetic fiber (Nylon, Rayon) and automobile industries pressing legislators to build freeways.