What laws would you make if you ruled the world?

Weed for everybody! Unless you’re psychotic.

Murder will be legal as long as you kill plastic surgeons.

I will solve the Climate Change issue by making it illegal for carbon dioxide to be a green house gas.

Stupid people cannot breed.

You can’t design a law to solve every problem that can arise. What we need is increasing problem solving, information sharing and collective decision making. I would make laws obsolete by introducing a large scale distributed-decision-making system. Using applied knowledge and creativity to solve problems.

Education would be free for everyone. Everyone would have access to the same learning materials. Everyone would have the ability to learn about everything.

Everyone stops shooting each other right the fuck now.
Since the world is now ruled by one person, all weapons of mass destruction are to be dismantled.
Tax money from first world countries will be invested in adequate food and medicine for third world countries, as well as proper infrastructure, sanitation, hospitals, schools and universities. Whining about tax increases will be punishable by one bitch slap with a history textbook.
Children are to be raised multi-lingually with at least English, Mandarin and Russian. (That’s no big deal if you start from birth on.)
Decent-speed wireless internet access is to be made freely available everywhere on earth.
Free puppies for everyone.

It shouldn’t be hard to significantly improve this world if the lot of it is united under one government, provided it’s not headed by selfish bastards. The uniting part is a lot harder than the part where the new rules are writtern.

1. Governments cannot spend more than they bring in.
2. Governments cannot go into debt.
3. Governments cannot tax income.
4. If you have it within your power to help someone without harming yourself or your family and fail to act, 5 years and $50,000

@CaptainHarley how would a gov operate with minimal funds? In terms of getting things done, unless you get people to do things as civil service. How do you clarify when one would be harming oneself and/or his family. I just would see this as easily abused to do nothing. Although I understand the intent.

The one and only rule I would make during my short reign is that, effect immediately, there shall never be a single person that rules the entire world.

Fluther would be newly named as God—all knowing.~

Seriously, I like @drasticdreamers answer about education. And @fyrius about all weapons of mass destruction dismantled (unless there really are alienswe need to worry about).

And some sort of limit on on how much a product can be marked when sold. My mom recently told me that her state has a ceiling of something like 25% on health care, can’t remember the exact number, and other states have no limit or very high limits, like 300% mark-ups on supplies used in hospitals, things like that. I find that to be gouging, I don’t seehowthatis different than charging $50 for batteries or a gallon of water after a hurricane. People are sick in a hospital, can’t shop around, at the mercy of whatever the hospital says the price is. Disgusting. Better yet, I like socialized medicine. I guess the ceiling in health care applies to our current system in the US. But, even with socialized medicine I would want a limit on mark up on goods and services for every industry. I want a capitalistic system, just not highway robbery.

@phoebusg

You want me to construct an entire legal system here? Now? Usually definitions and precedent are established by case law.

As to a government operating with minimal funds, I see that as a definite plus. The less power government has, the more freedom the people have.

I would also make initiative, referrendum, and recall a part of the process.

Jeeze, everyone’s taking this so seriously. Perhaps my answer was in bad taste. I’ll do a serious one then.

Destruction of all in-use arms with more fire power than a sub machine gun.

The legalization of ‘soft’ drugs for people >19 and a ban on all ‘hard’ drugs.

A graduated income tax will be used, going from none for those 18+ on minimum wage, to 50% of personal income on those making over 10 million dollars a year.

A total restructuring of the prison system would be done.

All public schools and universities will receive a massive boost in funding when our military budget is cut by a third. Also, new alternative classes will be started in the k-12 system. A couple examples would be out-door education and cultural awareness.

If I was Supreme World Dictator For Life, I’d set up a draft for all females. Once a year, I’d get to select any female from the draft registry to make a slave and put in my harem.

Beyond that, I’d make the world a fairly libertarian place with lots of personal freedom, but still have a few “socialist” safety nets for the people—I wouldn’t let the rich shit on the poor in the name of free enterprise…

For me, it’s not a question of making new laws, but repealing old ones.

wow, there are some pretty hardcore authoritarians in here… who woulda thunk it?

I think it’s all been said…..

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
John 13:34

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I like the love each other, but where is the example of you having loved me. Or, God? Or, whoever you think is the example in your statement?

The verse is referenced. You may earn that truth for yourself @JLeslie.

Gay marriage.

And then what @DrasticDreamer and @Fyrius said.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yes, I know you referenced the verse. I was asking in the context of this question. But, never mind. I should not have said anything.

I would initiate the following:
Mega-weenie Monday
Two-fer Tuesday
All-you-can-eat Wednesday
Thong Thursday
Crazy Hat Friday
S-A-TUR-DAY Night!
Sunday… closed for repairs

Ooh, can I pick all dentists must wear a tiara & a tutu please. Would make for an altogether more tolerable experience….maybe :¬)

I see. Didn’t mean to blow you off @JLeslie.

The commandments were considered law, thus a new command is a new law. In the context of the OP, I don’t really have any new law to add other than what Christ already did.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Not to worry, I was not annoyed. I mean God might have shown some love, but he also created a world with hurricanes and earthquakes, and disease, and I would not create that for people I love. I never feel like I have to punish my husband or parents.

Actual equality for all.

I understand @JLeslie.

Free cable, free internet and no bullying. LOL

Education would be free at all levels, and equal. No more “underprivileged schools”. They get good materials and good teachers that are paid WELL and can do their job.
Free internet and cable, and no more slums.

Literal Universal Health Care. Except, not for Republicans. :)

@Dutchess_III – I agree! Single Payer system like Canada and much of Europe. Not this mess that Obama implemented as a “compromise” with the corporate elite.

The law that will forbid me from making any more laws, because I believe that laws should be made by all people for all people. Not one ruler. Not one God.

@mattbrowne, bravo. I concur.

@mattbrowne – I agree to an extent. However, when religion influences people so that they can enact laws that favor only the majority, that’s where things fall apart. Prop 8 is a fine, fine example.

I like the Supreme Court in the U.S. acting as a defense of the minority – many rulings have been unpopular from a majority perspective, but in defense of the civil rights of minorities.

@iamthemob – Yes, therefore good constitutions are important, which are much harder to change requiring a majority of 67% or 75%. What helps as well are unions of multiple countries, such as the EU. A potential rogue country might reconsider and not let things fall apart. And then there’s the UN and the threat of sanctions. For the people, by the people. However, some risks remain.

@mattbrowne
I don’t like constitutions. They have a way of getting in the way of social progress. It’s perfectly possible for our generation’s fundamental values to be tomorrow’s dated naiveté.
I’d prefer to give minorities a right to veto proposals that would clearly affect them.

@Fyrius – Just give everyone the constitutional right to live any way they want to that is mutually consensual, with government only prohibiting actual crimes like murder, assault, theft, fraud, etc., and you won’t need to do anything special for minorities…

@Fyrius – What about amendments supporting social progress?

@mattbrowne
Amendments are good. But they’re patches.

Do you figure a constitution could be devised whose core principles can remain valid forever, without becoming dated?

@Fyrius – No. I think that’s impossible. Maybe for some rules such as the golden rule. But for others? Just consider the idea of technically enhanced human beings in the year 2050 thinking a thousand times faster than humans today. What does this mean in terms of our core principles? Predicting the future is very complex.

Indeed.
And isn’t the point of a constitution to lay down some basic, foundational rules that are not supposed to be changed?

Constitutions are good to keep bad rulers from misbehaving, but they’re hardly an ideal solution. I have to wonder if something more effective can’t be devised.

Politics is not my expertise, though. In fact, I think I know less about politics than average.

@Fyrius, just out of curiosity, what do you find oppressive or backward about the US Constitution?

As I see overpopulation as the main problem in the world I would introduce a state lottery that would tell everyone how many children they can have. Numbers would run from one to five and are not transferable.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard
If I implied I was talking about the American constitution in particular, that’s not what I meant.
Other countries have constitutions too, sheesh.

One thing that sometimes vexes me about constitutions is that people sometimes confuse the fact that a political point of view is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” with an argument for or against it.
A constitution is hardly the Everlasting and Inerrant Word of God carved into sacred stone. It’s not even written by people more sophisticated than us. In fact, it’s written by people who are guaranteed to be more primitive and ignorant than us, simply by having the bad fortune of living in an earlier time.
But people who use constitutions to cling to the values of the past aren’t using them wrong. Essentially, that’s what constitutions are for, isn’t it? A brake on political developments.

Well, like I said, I’m not very knowledgeable about politics. But it seems to me like a bad system.

@Fyrius, I know, but you said “constitutions” which includes the US Constitution. That’s why I asked, I was just curious.

And while I disagree with you about constitutions being a negative thing, you are correct that they serve as a brake on “political developments.” They are meant to be hard to change to prevent radical changes from happening in government and countries all the time. I am ok with this. Not all change is good, in my mind, and I’d prefer the slow, safe road to paradise as opposed to the rapid, yet dangerous one, if ya catch my drift.

For what it’s worth, I can see where you’re coming from.

I think the first articles of a constitution are typically not that controversial and most people agree with it. But later on, it gets more complicated. Let’s take the German Constitution as an example. I think many Americans will object to article 7, which includes the issue of home schooling.

Article 1 [Human dignity]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

Article 2 [Personal freedoms]
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.

Article 3 [Equality before the law]
(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.
(3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.

Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.

Article 5 [Freedom of expression]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]
(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.
(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.
(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.
(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.
(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.

Article 7 [School education]
(1) The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state.
(2) Parents and guardians shall have the right to decide whether children shall receive religious instruction.
(3) Religious instruction shall form part of the regular curriculum in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational schools. Without prejudice to the state’s right of supervision, religious instruction shall be given in accordance with the tenets of the religious community concerned. Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give religious instruction.
(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed. Private schools that serve as alternatives to state schools shall require the approval of the State and shall be subject to the laws of the states. Such approval shall be given when private schools are not inferior to the state schools in terms of their educational aims, their facilities, or the professional training of their teaching staff, and when segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents will not be encouraged thereby. Approval shall be withheld if the economic and legal position of the teaching staff is not adequately assured.
(5) A private elementary school shall be approved only if the educational authority finds that it serves a special pedagogical interest or if, on the application of parents or guardians, it is to be established as a denominational or interdenominational school or as a school based on a particular philosophy and no state elementary school of that type exists in the municipality.
(6) Preparatory schools shall remain abolished.

Article 8 [Freedom of assembly]
(1) All Germans shall have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed without prior notification or permission.
(2) In the case of outdoor assemblies, this right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm

@Fyrius, awesome. Thank you.

If someone is convicted of a crime they did not commit the prosecutor has to spend as much time in prison as what the convicted person served before the verdict was overturned.

@beancrisp
Would that really be fair? Prosecutors can also be honestly mistaken…

@beancrisp – I think that’s an excellent idea!

@Fyrius – If they don’t like the risk, don’t take the job. The falsely accused and wrongly convicted have no choice.

@HungryGuy . . . What if the wrongly convicted had a real shitty attorney?

Seriously, how can you blame the baker if you let you bread get moldy?

Here’s another one. Lottery tickets may only be sold if the probability of winning is clearly indicated on the ticket for each prize, in a standardized format.
Preferably there should also be a table indicating what these probabilities would be for more than one ticket.

For a few years now, cigarette boxes in the Netherlands (and possibly elsewhere) have been legally obligated to bear an easily visible warning text along the lines of “this stuff can freaking kill you, so smoke at your own risk”.
This seems like a good extension of that policy. Smoke only if you know it’ll affect your health, gamble only if you know how long the odds are.

And here’s a few more:

1.) Fines and court fees collected from traffic tickets could not go into the general find or pay for court costs. Every penny collected in fines and court fees must be accounted for and either given to charity or given to crime victims, with government eating the administrative costs. This will stop the government from using police and traffic laws as a form of tax collection and will go a long way toward making the average citizen respect the police and the law.

2.) Any politician who votes for an unconstitutional law can be found guilty of treason.

3.) Any jury member who votes to convict someone for breaking an unconstitutional law can be held liable for that person’s time spent in prison.

@HungryGuy – the concept of constitutionality shifts over time…and whether something is unconstitutional (especially on Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment grounds) is not at all clear much of the time. I think that makes (2) pretty unworkable. (3) is unworkable for much the same reasons – and considering that a jury is charged with applying the law as is, you’d be charging them with the opposite of their basic duty. Also, I don’t want to imagine the deliberations you’d have if people were actually afraid they might be convicting someone on a law that might be determined unconstitutional – I know if I were in that position, I’d be voting “Not Guilty” regardless of whether I thought the person was guilty out of concern for myself.

I have an idea!

I’d ban criminals! That would end crime!

Yeah! Just put all the criminals in jail! What a great idea! No more crime!

I’d outlaw rulers of any sort, and quickly resign before any smartasses got the wrong idea.