General Discussion

11967 readers

33 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.

🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding Communities

Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

[email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
[email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
[email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
[email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.

0. See: Rules for Users.

No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
No Ads/Spamming.
No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Jessica

ElectroVagrant

fubo

Does this plan make sense? (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by 3volver to c/general

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TootSweet 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes.
Yes.
Basically because influence in the senate isn't scaled by population? I can get behind that. Any other reasons?
Why? (Aside from that it's stuffed with Trump appointees and insurrectionists right now, I mean.)
Hadn't heard of this before, but what little I'm seeing about it sounds good.
Obviously.
I'm definitely not up on this one.
Maybe, but only if we introduce something else that'll have rich people actually paying taxes (for real). Otherwise, reform income tax.

And ones you've neglected:

Abolish corporate personhood
Wealth tax
UBI
Constitutionally-protected reproductive rights
Abolish 2A
Abolish private prisons
Abolish forced labor

And if we're allowed to include things probably well outside the Overton Window:

Abolish private property, prison, cops, military, borders, employment, the profit motive, corporations
To each according to need

That's just off the top of my head.

[–] Carighan 5 points 7 months ago

Abolish corporate personhood

This to me is a big one.

One big issue in bigger corporations is how the C-suite execs are inherently not being held responsible for any damages caused by their decisions, as due to the raw size of the company, these happen too late, and they can take a golden parachute and go to the next company to focus on shortest-term gains, raise stock prices, then get bonuses based on that.

But, a few things can be done to improve that, and requiring companies to have someone legally be responsible for the shit happening under them would be a huge step. Personal accountability. Either be responsible as the CEO, or have a legal document that delineates which issues fall under whose manager's umbrella.

I'd go a step further and make C-suites / management with profit sharing or stock-based bonuses also automatically lose money for losses in said performances, even after they leave the company, based on the percentage of money they were responsible for (You worked there 12y ago to 8y ago, you were the CEO so 100% responsibility, company now lost 6 mil, you have to pay back bonuses based on 2 millions "performance").