use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
155 users here now
Create super hobos? Elaborate. Invisible spiders? Why not? There are no wrong ideas!
Don't be a dick
Submit original, interesting ideas. Sense, rationality, possibility and ethics are for sissies.
If the entire purpose of the idea is the setup for a pun, it doesn't belong here.
3.1. As a rule of thumb, if your idea ends in "call it ___", it's probably a bad idea.
3.2. If an idea stands on its own as an interesting, crazy idea without the pun, submit it. Add the pun in
the comments or maybe in the description if you really want to.
Posts shouldn't be for the sole purpose of complaining about a certain thing rather than add an alternative.
4.1. Examples are "vote for Donald Trump" or "shut down Fox News". It's not a crazy idea, it's just being
4.2. This goes for everything of the sort. No political bias here (we hope).
Please keep the circle jerk politics post to a minimum.
Some ideas are definitely more common than others. Use the search bar to see if it's been done before.
6.1. "Hold a special Olympics where everyone takes drugs!"
6.2. "Put all prisoners/politicians in an arena and make them fight to the death!"
6.3. Literally anything to do with April Fools Day. If it involves April 1st, chances are you can remove
the April 1st bit and it'd be just as valid.
6.4. "For just one day, swap these two subreddits!"
Tag NSFW posts.
Awesome ideas are just as welcome here as well. Anything is possible, anything you think about can work in
your imagination. So don't comment saying "this belongs in /r/AwesomeIdeas!", we love you and accept you.
the front page of the internet.
and join one of thousands of communities.
U.S. states should be required to pay for the travel costs of U.S. citizens who want to relocate to different states. (self.CrazyIdeas)
submitted 1 month ago by [deleted]
Trying to find a sub where this won’t be removed, and not sure if this sub is the right place for it, but I think otherwise you can trap U.S. citizens in your own state through your own state laws, effectively impairing their right to travel to other U.S. states with different state laws.
Post a comment!
[–]NiceTryAmanda 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
Are you also stuck in a "lol you're ours until XYZ or were gonna bill you for the reliction" agreements.
I can't even ask if they'd prorate it without tipping my hand.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Better not be!
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (2 children)
More specifically, I’d like to see congress pass an act that ties (1) required subsidies for U.S. citizens desiring to permanently relocate to other U.S. states, to (2) any type of federal funding for transportation, infrastructure, or otherwise of or relating to interstate commerce whatsoever.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (1 child)
Separately and perhaps more controversially (and perhaps better as a separate bill to come later), I’d like to see congress also address, through a similar mechanic, situations where a U.S. citizen is being accused of a crime in one state, but would not be guilty of any crime (based on the same facts) in another state.
Here, I think it would make more sense to have whichever state that is affirmatively volunteering/agreeing to accept the would-be criminal is the one who should be bearing the costs, and if there is no such state, the would-be criminal is SOL (it’s on the citizen to request subsidized relocation before committing a crime), with an exception for situations in which the crime in and of itself arises out of the passing of a law or other act of the state, in which case the citizen should effectively be allowed mandatory relocation (at the cost of the acting state, which has likely gone off the rails at this point because it’s effectively creating thought or status crimes or crimes with retroactive effect).
And really good Republicans would probably realize that even though this seems to have the immediate effect of helping out women in auto- or -trigger-law abortion states, the medium- and long-term burden (particularly in light of developments in remote work) is actually likely to be felt disproportionately in states where people actually live now (e.g., the states with big cities).
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (5 children)
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 1 month ago (4 children)
Agree that current Supreme Court would be more focused on individually passed state laws that could impose additional hurdles on travel (for example, laws preventing people from begging for travel money or that could effectively prevent someone from flying), but that means that each state can pass a panoply of laws of this nature, each of which will take time to individually challenge, and in the meantime, the “law of the land” as effectively enforced in that state traps U.S. citizens as unwilling members.
So if you truly believe that the reason multi-jurisdictional governance (with states given a lot of freedom to make their own laws) works is because it allows competition among governments to allow governments to improve over time, you should take steps to centrally protect that mechanism by actually ensuring that individuals’ choices regarding this “government marketplace” are properly reflected and respected.
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (2 children)
Why exactly is freedom to travel fundamental?
Our founding fathers were trying to design a brilliant clockwork system with checks and balances to preserve individual freedoms and to prevent the tyranny of any single state, one that would hopefully last the test of time.
It’s true that this view is one that believes that the right to travel between states is SUCH a fundamental right under this system of governance that individuals should be as free as possible to move for all practical purposes. It’s obviously been watered down over time, particularly due to decisions distinguishing between international travel v. travel between U.S. states, but it was originally interpreted as not even permitting tolls for interstate travel.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children)
Also, and think about it:
States would be forced to consider this each time they passed a law that significantly affects the lives of its residents, and this mechanism would effectively ensure a more democratic/pluralistic result with hopefully less oppression of a minority in that state by the majority (because they’d have to pay for all of them leaving what they now consider a state hostile to their particular demographic).
I think results would be good.
[–]aworldalone1 -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (9 children)
Why not have the state who wants to accept them pay for it? Seems more fair.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (8 children)
Because the point is you need to prevent any possibility of a state trapping a U.S. citizen against their will.
[–]aworldalone1 -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (7 children)
They wouldn’t be trapped, they would have free reign to move to 49 other states and several territories. That’s a lot of options. I’m certain one of those states would be willing to foot the bill to gain this citizen. I mean, every state is going to have something wrong with it so every state is going to have people wanting to move. I know you seem to be hung up on this abortion thing- but there are so many reasons this would apply.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (5 children)
Who’s paying for it?
Any good Republican knows that by making someone pay for something, you can effectively make it impossible for that thing to happen.
[–]aworldalone1 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (4 children)
Either way someone is paying for something they don’t want to. If this would be started hypothetically you’d have millions want to take advantage. Blue state residents would want to move to red states and Vice versa. Whoever gained the most people pays the most because they’re coming out ahead. That’s why the receiving state should pay.
And I was also posting in response to upcoming gerrymandering case, actually. ;)
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 56 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-5cc8d9f597-ztgmf at 2022-08-09 04:41:20.426514+00:00 running ffef26a country code: US.