The future: drone camera used in football game ruins the game by crashing into a player or the ball.
A Practical Alternative to the 6 Californias Proposal
A more practical (achievable) solution than the proposal to break up California into multiple states is to give counties with at least a certain population the right to be autonomous from the state government (they would still count as part of the state for federal representation purposes).
Ban Party Indication on Ballots
Things would be better if ballots didn’t indicate a candidate’s political party, and didn’t offer straight ticket voting.
This would keep people from voting for people who they don’t know, whose positions they don’t know, simply because of the letter next to their name. Voter turnout would go down for non-presidential races. That’s good - you don’t want uninformed voters voting.
Most Needed Constitutional Amendment
A cap on federal spending.
I propose 3% of GDP. That’s about $450B, enough to operate a more than adequate military and the few other essential functions of the national government.
No other Constitutional provision has the capacity to limit the power of the federal government as this does. Everything else would be handled at a lower level of government, like the founders intended. This means more accountability and public policy that better reflects the desires of the people, instead of a massive federal government forcing one-size-fits-all policies onto hundreds of millions of people.
There should be a provision to override the cap: I propose a 3/4 vote in each house of the legislature.
I wonder how many world-changing innovations are out there, in autistic peoples’ minds, only needing a patient and (emotionally) intelligent enough person to discover these ideas.
Edit: I’m referring to savants, not normal autists.
Reducing Police Misconduct
1. Improve employee selection. Employ psychological assessments that measure, among other traits, intelligence and dark triad scores, and weed out applicants that score too poorly.
2. Have thorough training on citizens’ rights, including the right to record, applicable gun rights (particularly with regard to public carry), the right to refuse to answer questions or provide ID (law varies by state), the right to walk away from a non-detainment encounter, and most importantly, ensure they have a thorough understanding as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
3. Mandate the use of body cameras. Unless the footage contains evidence pertaining to a crime (including a complaint made against an officer), the footage is automatically destroyed between 30 and 60 days from the day it is taken.
Citizens can demand that footage of them is destroyed immediately, if it doesn’t pertain to a crime, so that they can have embarrassing footage destroyed. Access to video is limited to certain personnel and on an as needed basis to avoid tampering. Furthermore, access is logged.
4. Limit the carrying of lethal weapons (firearms and tasers) to officers who have 5 years of field experience.
5. Treat the use of tasers, especially when used on children, the elderly, or where one’s head will likely hit a hard surface, as potentially lethal force, one step below using a firearm, thus only authorizing their use in situations that would warrant lethal force.
Tagged: #police #police misconduct #body cameras #politics #libertarian #liberty #original #idea #I had this draft saved for a while #I realized this is a good time to post it #Ending the war on drugs and reducing the size of government would also #reduce police misconduct by vastly reducing the number of police encounters
Sex and Consent
A California bill currently being considered would require colleges to establish a ‘yes means yes’ standard for consent, in exchange for funding.
That’s an unreasonable and ridiculous standard. Consent is sometimes nonverbal (some lawmakers acknowledge this).
Additionally, just because somebody is intoxicated doesn’t mean they’re incapable of consent. There are degrees of incapacitation. A person who is highly intoxicated can be jumping around, very lively, and flirting with people, even initiating sexual encounters. Sex with such a person should be considered consensual. It can be difficult to discern such a person’s level of intoxication. Furthermore, if they killed somebody, they would certainly be held responsible.
Also, sometimes consent isn’t communicated - if you’re in an ongoing sexual relationship with somebody, unless you have reason to believe otherwise, you have reasonable expectation that they’re okay with you making some sexual contact with them while asleep. Do lawmakers seriously expect a person to get explicit permission from a partner beforehand for sexually touching a partner while cuddling during sleep? Or does the partner need to be woken and asked, “Is it okay for my pelvis to press against your buttocks?”
The legal definition of sexual assault should be as follows: the act of making sexual contact* with a person
1. Who objects to the sexual contact once able to object, which may occur before or after the contact, and includes verbal and non-verbal forms of objection;
2. Who is unable to object to the sexual contact for reasons other than short-term incapacitation**, and there’s a reasonable belief that the recipient of sexual contact would have objected, if able; or
3. Following the threat of a criminal act, which is not defined as limited to explicit communication, and may include the display or referencing of a weapon with the intent of invoking fear
*Sexual contact includes near sexual contact, defined as coming in near proximity to a person’s exposed sexual body parts, or causing a person to come in near proximity to another person’s exposed sexual body parts.
**Short-term incapacitation refers to sleep, temporary intoxication, and any other possible similar states.
It should be a defense to prosecution that there was no objection to the sexual contact prior to the act and the defendant was in an ongoing sexual relationship with the recipient of the sexual contact, so the defendant had a reasonable expectation that the recipient of the sexual contact would not have objected.
For section 1 above, if you see a person making sexual contact with an unconscious person, unless you know they’re in an ongoing sexual relationship, it’s justified to interfere. But as a legal matter, the recipient of the sexual contact would need to press charges upon becoming conscious for it to be prosecuted, because it’s possible that the recipient would be okay with it.