• s_s@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Non-utilitized internet service.

    Internet providers ARE UTILITIES. Regulate them like one.

    • speeding_slug@feddit.nl
      0·
      3 months ago

      At the very least, do so for the infrastructure. I don’t mind companies trying to sell me the service competitively, but the infrastructure should allow for a competitive market.

  • PanoptiDon@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    Billionaires

    Ads for medication

    Campaign contributions greater than $n from people and greater than $0 from corporations

    Civil forfeiture

    Prosecuting attorneys withholding exculpatory evidence

    Firearms which aren’t single action for civilian use (police are civilians)

    Receiving gifts greater than $250 USD as a supreme Court Justice or family member of the supreme Court Justice.

    • toiletobserver@lemm.ee
      0·
      3 months ago

      I can see where you are coming from, but if you don’t allow me this vice, you’d better get me an alternative.

  • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Zero hour contracts in the uk don’t actually have to have an actual contract so if your boss says that something is in your job description you can’t argue otherwise because there was never a contract that said what your job roles were to start with.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        3 months ago

        There were musicians far before passive income for creative work was a thing. And it’s not like the €0.003 per play Spotify pays is making bank for most musicians.

    • velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      Passive income isn’t a bad concept. People in the creative and research field would clearly benefit from crowd-funding and recurring donations.

      • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Government should found more art and research, also donation and crowd funding aren’t passive income. I believe OP talked about the Marxists bourgeoisie the class of people who live off dividends or rent and doesn’t need to work

    • Hjalmar@feddit.nu
      0·
      3 months ago

      Does that include a ban of UBI (universal basic income)? Because that is a idea I do indeed support

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        Going by the traditional definition, UBI is indeed passive income. I don’t think it is as bad as other forms of passive income, but I would prefer subsidies over just giving people cash.

    • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      This one is pretty location specific but I agree that US law doesn’t make any sense. Like, physician and pharmacist spend 10 years at university to learn all the details about prescription medication and then have to get yearly retraining, so how do you even do ad’s for that

    • Che Banana@beehaw.org
      0·
      3 months ago

      I left the US to work overseas and when I came back the law changed and everyone was hooked on viagra, the “little purple pill” and everything else…it was VERY obvious what happened…after we sttled down we went to establish care woth a GP & I walked out of my initial appointment with 6 prescriptions.

      ridiculous…

    • FlapKap@feddit.dk
      0·
      3 months ago

      Well that highly depends on location. I think that’s illegal in most of Europe

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          0·
          3 months ago

          We get medication ads here in Canada, they’re just very restricted in what they can actually say, but Sportsnet runs a rybelsus ad every hockey game

      • Rinox@feddit.it
        0·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think that’s realistic. Even the guy at the local market shouting “get your potatoes here” is technically advertisement.

        What could work instead is to make both the company that advertises and the one that displays the ad liable for the ad itself. If it’s inappropriate, contains malware or is in any way malicious, the company displaying it should also be liable for endangering the customers. Also outlaw tracking for advertisement purposes altogether

    • Dandroid@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think owning your home is realistic in all scenarios. For example, let’s say because you needed to leave your abusive partner, so you don’t have the luxury of going through the whole process of saving money, then researching, and eventually purchasing a home. You need to get out, maybe live somewhere for a year or two to get your feet under you and save some money so you can purchase a home. If you couldn’t rent a home, how could you possibly get out of this situation if you had no money on hand?

      If you move to a new city that you’ve never visited before, sometimes you want to rent in a few areas to find the areas you like before commit long term to a place.

      I really don’t think buying a home should be your only option for living in a home. It’s just not what’s best for some people in some scenarios.

      • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Government owned housing used to be a common thing in the UK and it’s how housing works in Singapore today, just because private landlords don’t exist doesn’t mean people can’t rent houses from the government

  • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Screwing over a large number of people to benefit a small number of people. Religion and corporations immediately come to mind.

    • Pietson@kbin.social
      0·
      3 months ago

      That’s very vague and sounds like it would mainly affect minorities in a negative way. Not that I think that’s your intention of course.

    • JCPhoenix@beehaw.orgEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that’s lobbying. You’re asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others’) benefit.

      Even lobbying groups aren’t necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I’m sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.

      So banning lobbying doesn’t really work. Now if you’re talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.

      But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.

    • Salvo@aussie.zoneEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Owning shares when you are an elected official with jurisdiction over the industry you own shares in.

      Also, any political figure owning shares in a media organisation, regardless of whether it is traditional media or “new media”.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      0·
      3 months ago

      Lobbying in and of itself isn’t bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.

      Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.

      I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place…

    • BennyHill500@lemmy.ml
      0·
      3 months ago

      God the nerds in here are annoying.

      “Ackchually banning lobbying would mean nobody could talk to politicians anymore blah blah…”

      Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.

        Could you explain?

        • kali@lemm.ee
          0·
          3 months ago

          Lobbying as in “bribery with extra steps” where companies give money to politicians, ask them to do something, then say it’s ok because it’s “lobbying” and therefore not bribery, but people are coming in and pointing out how lobbying technically just means talking to politicians, but that’s not what RotatingParts meant.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          0·
          3 months ago

          Probably the part where they’re straight-up bribing politicians to rubber stamp the garbage that ALEC writes.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        0·
        3 months ago

        Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.

        People who don’t know anything about lobbying know what you mean when you say lobbying should be illegal.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Gonna overturn the 1st Amendment?

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      I’m sure there are ways to dial in the abuse, but what legislator is gonna vote for that?

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Governments, businesses, corporations and all of us just normalizing and accepting that the majority of everything we own or buy at affordable prices are all based on taking advantage of as many poor people as possible in our home countries and most of the time in third world developing nations where people are paid pennies for their work.

    We complain about China, yet everyone buys everything from them. We look down on third world developing countries yet we base our economies on manufacturing a ton of stuff from them because they all hire people for as little as possible. In America, Canada and Europe, we have agricultural workers we ship in from poorer countries to harvest our crops because we don’t want to pay higher prices for labour to the people that live in our countries … we would rather pay poverty wages for imported labour that we don’t want to stay in our country.

    Everything we do, buy and pay for is all based on exploitation … our entire economy the world over is based on it … yet it is perfectly legal … but if we are all so moral, enlightened and intelligent then it should be illegal.

    • Mesophar@lemm.ee
      0·
      3 months ago

      Rather than downvoting, I’d like to ask why you think all forms of alcohol for consumption should be illegal

      • Lath@kbin.earth
        0·
        3 months ago

        Probably because they’re basically poison that has to be filtered out and fucks up your liver and kidneys.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          0·
          3 months ago

          If we forbid things just because they are mildly toxic, we would need to forbid almost everything. Including oxygen and water.

          • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
            0·
            3 months ago

            Oh yeah, a lot of people die because they drink too much water. Don’t forget how moch money is wasted because people break shit and beat each other up when theu are high on water.

            • Mesophar@lemm.ee
              0·
              3 months ago

              Isn’t that more a social issue? Getting drunk and becoming violent isn’t a cause-effect. Someone that becomes abusive after drinking would be abusive without alcohol as well, that’s just a trigger for the behavior.

              This is closer to an actual answer, though. It’s easier to remove drinking than to change drinking culture. It just didn’t work the last time they tried to ban alcohol (in the USA), so if behavior around drinking is the issue that is trying to be solved there are probably other ways to go about it.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            3 months ago

            Alcohol is pretty significantly toxic, especially compared to oxygen and water.

            I’m not in favour of banning it outright, but alcohol is more dangerous than some drugs that are illegal in many parts of the world, including the US.

        • Mesophar@lemm.ee
          0·
          3 months ago

          Ok, but there are plenty of other items that that do that as well. It’s not a call out of “all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol”. It’s not a callout of microplastics. So there’s something specific to alcohol.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            0·
            3 months ago

            So there’s something specific to alcohol.

            Being widespread. One bad set of laws in bad place in bad time (propination laws in eastern Europe in XVIII-XIX century) caused untold suffering and is keenly felt to this day, showing how easily hundreds of millions of people can be fucked up by poisonous commodity.

            I’m not for entirely banning alcohol, but only because it would be rather futile, but for restrictions in its selling and far going educational campaigns to finally get rid of it - and it is possible, even if not entirely, looking at the decline of consumption of other poison, tobacco.