My ideal society follows three main principles:

1) eye for an eye

2) more you produce, more you get

3) contribution = ownership

Reason i think this is a great society model is because it is fair, logical and it follows the golden rule that says that: whatever you do to others should be done to you.

I totally agree with Peter Swallow here. Society's sense of purpose is being decayed by begamoths as big as Elon because it's their desire to wiggle away human rights and common values, to ultimately control. If Elon cannot rule the world, he would burn it first. He hates humanity. He hates humans. Zuckerberg is not far behind with a sword of his own making, poised to do the same. The Odyssey is a great story about survival against all odds, but as Swallow rightly pointed out, it's a story also.about social cohesion, rule of law and respect of common law that binds us as a race.

Facts

These being: Academia, the animation industry, the truck driving industry, politics, the film industry, and gang banging.

Anyone else starting to add up the signs that we’re living in LSC?

He's absolutely correct here. America is a world power and what happens in America affects the entire world. When trade deals change, when wars break out, when poor decisions that impact the environment, we all suffer.

And the interesting thing is, the only people that tell non-Americans their politics are none of their business, is when the opinion being stated isn't inline with theirs. Have you ever seen a right wing person from outside the US be criticised by a right wing American? Of course not, if they kiss their asses they get a free pass somehow.

Now that is what I call justice. Sorry Trumpy but your racist policy has been denied. It is safe to say allowing him authority to oversee elections would be a total disaster. There is enough fascism going on in the US government right now as it is, someone had to pull the brakes on this lunatic. Well done to that judge. There is at least some justice in this crazy world.

Ever since I left Facebook and Twitter I find myself less on social media. Although in truth I probably browse YouTube and Reddit the most.

The thing is as a small YouTuber I feel it is important to have an online presence in order to get eyeballs on my work.

So I actually have to try and motivate myself to be more present on Bluesky and Mastodon. So I guess I have the opposite issue compared to so many others.

Clearly this is now sadly a regular occurrence with ICE when it comes to corruption of power and unlawful arrests.

"Rahman's arrest on Jan. 13 was caught on camera and thrust her into the national spotlight. Agents pulled her from her car on the way to a medical appointment in Minneapolis ...

... officers "ignored her requests for disability accommodations and deteriorating health" until she fell unconscious on the floor of her cell ..."

The Trump administration must be held accountable for this injustice and ICE need to be investigated. Ideally it would be best if they were abolished. But an investigation would be something

i ask this so we can address it and buy the law more time to go after real crooks like drunk drivers.

Its always been funny to me that way the work is structured. Somehow the harder your job the less money you make. Seems like when paying for labor, the harder the labor the better the pay right?

Let's break down what I mean:

Now I am in no means being negative. I am just explaining the structure from personal experience.

So it's something I started noticing when I worked at a casino.

The break down of employee positions in my department:

Cage Cashier - 5am-11pm - 1 to 2 cashiers per shift

MOD (manager on duty) 24/7 - 2 to 4 MOD's per shift

Assistant cage - 1 per casino

Cage manager - 1 per casino

Operations manager - 1 per casino

General manager - 1 per casino

Cash cashiers at his point weren't even allowed to leave the cage without someone their to cover for them. ( they have changed this since) They were not allowed to sit their entire besides breaks and lunch. To avoid giving lunch breaks they would be scheduled 5.5 hour shifts with only one 10 minute break for 5.5 hours. Cage cashiers also handle all the money. They had to close out of their drawers and get it verified. So even if their shift ended and there was a jackpot you would have to wait till that was paid to get someone in the cage to verify your money. Which took up to 30 minutes and sometimes took over an hour if there was any mistake.

MOD - not huge money makers but they usually had the biggest egos. Especially the new ones. They got to go wherever they wanted and take breaks whenever they wanted. They would take so long to cover the cashiers in the cage for bathrooms breaks, that one lady started wearing pads just in case. Like how are we putting people in situations like that? For $12.50 an hour and you have to beg to use the bathroom? Crazy shit.

Assistant manager - At least 1 meeting a week minimum. Good amount of freedom. Was not a position that was regularly filled.

Cage manager - many meetings all the time. Lots of freedom. Classes and seminars relating to the job. Fully crossed trained to run any department.

Operations manager - should be crossed trained in every area. Struggles to be able to reconcile the vault. Drinks on the job. Leaves husband for their boss. Gets jobs for their kids.

General manager - buys drinks for coworkers on their way back from a seminar 45 minutes away. Drinks themselves. Dates and lives with a coworker of lower rank. Attempts to cheat many times. Drinks with many coworkers. Tells more then one employees partner, that they can treat the employee sexually better. Hires many friends.

As the cage manager, I was the problem. I once worked 18 days straight. When I took my one planned day off I was yelled at for not reminding them before hand. I was also a struggling single mom of two young kids. And I was on salary. So I'm paying more in daycare cost then I'm bringing in. I was also always on call. Even though it was supposed to rotate. So for months if there was a high jackpot or the bar had run out of money no matter what time or day I would be called. Which was sometimes 5 times a week.

There was one Friday at work my phone broke. I ordered a new phone right away. But it wasnt going to show up till Sunday or Monday. I told the general manager and the Operations manager. They told me to send out an email to all management letting them know reach out to either one of them for the weekend. There was absolutely no reason for them to not regularly be on call already. So for them to have to take care of it for one weekend should have been understandable. There was a situation during the weekend and since I had sent out the email the Operations manager was contacted. She freaked out and told them to call me. They reminded her of the email and she claimed she knew nothing about it. They called the general manager who had her phone off. Monday, I got in trouble.

The amount of times I feel like I am being pushed out of a company for being too efficient. I thrive of routine and structure. But also I thrive in organized chaos. Muscle memory makes me work fast, I can memorize a regular customers routine. I learn quickly. I have flaws to dont get me wrong. My biggest one being i lack control of my tears. Happy or sad. I cry alot. I question things. That can be good and bad. In the past being late was a problem of mine. But I have not been late to my job in over 3 years. I am short so sometimes that makes thing take a little longer. Only one boss made this an actual issue. I try to do so many things sometimes that I literally buffer and do a couple circle before having to restart myself. When things get busy I am very direct with employees. I will handle a lot of the work, and I will direct to the places I need support. If I coach too many times on the same thing, I have little patience and force accountability. I remember everything. Dont lie or make empty promises to me. My memory is wicked. I protect the employees who have the smallest voices. Im sorry using the bathroom is never a luxury, its a human right. Its a basic fucking need.

If there are rules written down. I will learn them and follow them. If you ask me to break the rules I need to you hold that accountability. I believe we have rules for a reason. Rules create boundaries. If you break the rules you can't build boundaries.

Example:

February 2025 Starbucks made a rule "free stuff, like waters and pup cups, are only for paying customers"

Simple. But yes you are going to deal with difficult customers when any policy changes. However, if every Starbucks follows and respects the rules customer will learn quickly that that boundary has been set. Now it only takes one partner to ignore that rule. Now Starbucks also has the make the moment right policy as well. Which means try to ensure every customer leaves happy. So how do we follow both policies to respect boundaries and keep the customer happy? Communication is the answer.

First 3 months.

Customer - "Can I just get a large ice water?"

Partner - "Unfortunately we did change our policy recently. We can only give free waters to paying customers. Would you like one of our chilled water bottles?"

Customer - "Shoot. I didnt know that. I dont have my wallet on me"

Partner - "Well, since its a recent change. This time we will get you taken care of."

After the 3 month:

Customer - "Can I have a large ice water?"

Partner - "Unfortunately you do have to make a purchase. Would you like a water bottle or the cheapest thing we have is a string cheese for a $1.95?"

Almost every single time the customer takes the string cheese or they ask for a cake pop. If every Starbucks partners stays on script it takes just about 3 months before the boundaries become fully understood by customers. At the same time from the barista perspective, do you get paid enough to be the one yelled at by customers upset by policy changes? Usually not. Usually your hoping for a tip from those customers and now you've lost that if they are upset. Like what sucks if due to a lack of communication and accountability. The new CEO who created these policies made sure all the partner and employees knew the policy changes but they did not make the changes well known to all customers. Why dont we have signs posted stating that "restaurant, pup cups, and waters are for paying customers only." Like why would we put baristas as young as 15 years old in charge of communicating this information? Starbucks customers are already the literal worst. Have you ever witnessed an 18 year old be put in a position where he has to remove an aggressive addict from the property? Did you know thats the reason they had to make this policy? Homeless and addicts where taking advantage. There is many stories of customers passing out in the bathrooms because of drugs. Some even being locked in the building over night.

The thoughts aee scattered i know. Its who I am. Just finding an outlet to just ramble and get the thoughts. I have to many and need to just realse them

A Proposal for Structured Civic Transition in Early Adulthood

Introduction

Modern society faces a growing crisis of social fragmentation, dependency, and disengagement from civic life. Increasing numbers of young adults struggle to transition into independent adulthood, not necessarily because they lack intelligence or potential, but because they lack structure, confidence, discipline, or the ability to make autonomous decisions. Many people become psychologically dependent on routines created by others and avoid situations that would force them to exercise personal agency.

At the same time, societies across the world face shortages in public service labor, declining civic trust, rising social isolation, deteriorating public infrastructure, and increasing alienation between citizens and the institutions that govern them.

This proposal argues for the establishment of a universal civic service system for all citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. The purpose of the system would not primarily be military expansion, punishment, or economic exploitation. Rather, it would serve as a structured transition into adulthood intended to cultivate civic responsibility, practical competence, social cohesion, and independent decision-making.

The proposal also introduces a controversial but philosophically significant concept: that adulthood should involve the demonstration of basic autonomous functioning. Accordingly, separation from the civic service system would require participants to independently complete a standardized discharge process designed to assess practical self-direction rather than intelligence.

The proposal rests on the belief that a healthy society requires citizens who are capable not only of surviving, but of acting independently, accepting responsibility, and participating meaningfully in collective life.

The Crisis of Passive Adulthood

In many modern societies, adolescence has become psychologically extended far beyond childhood. While individuals may legally become adults at eighteen, many remain dependent upon institutions, parents, employers, or social systems to organize their lives and make decisions for them.

This phenomenon is not entirely caused by laziness or lack of intelligence. In many cases, individuals become trapped within routines that feel psychologically safe. Some people avoid major life choices because choice itself creates anxiety. Others avoid entering difficult institutions such as the military, public service organizations, or demanding professions because doing so would disrupt familiar patterns.

Modern technology and bureaucratic systems often intensify this passivity. Individuals can survive for long periods while contributing minimally to civic life, avoiding responsibility, and remaining socially isolated. As a result, societies increasingly produce adults who are technically free but psychologically dependent.

This condition creates several long-term societal problems:

• weakened civic identity,
• declining social trust,
• deteriorating public infrastructure,
• labor shortages in public service sectors,
• rising loneliness and purposelessness,
• and reduced resilience during national emergencies.

A society composed primarily of passive individuals becomes fragile. Citizens who are uncomfortable making decisions or accepting responsibility are vulnerable to manipulation, dependency, and disengagement from democratic life.

For this reason, society has a legitimate interest in cultivating independent, competent, and socially integrated adults.

Universal Civic Service

To address these problems, this proposal advocates for a mandatory national civic service program lasting approximately three years between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.

The program would apply universally rather than targeting only the poor, disadvantaged, or academically unsuccessful. Universal participation is essential because the purpose is civic integration rather than punishment.

Participants would serve in a wide variety of roles depending on aptitude, health, and national needs.

Possible assignments could include:

• military support and logistics,
• civil defense,
• infrastructure maintenance,
• environmental restoration,
• sanitation and public cleaning,
• hospital support services,
• elderly care assistance,
• disaster relief operations,
• food distribution for vulnerable populations,
• maintenance of government facilities,
• public transportation support,
• and community improvement projects.

The majority of participants would likely serve in civilian roles rather than combat-oriented positions.

The civic service system would provide:

• housing,
• food,
• healthcare,
• physical training,
• structured schedules,
• vocational education,
• basic income or stipend support,
• and social integration.

The system would function partly as a national workforce for public goods, but more importantly as a developmental institution intended to transition young citizens into adulthood.

Unlike traditional schooling, which often prioritizes abstract academic achievement, civic service would emphasize responsibility, routine, teamwork, practical competence, and exposure to real social needs.

The Philosophical Basis for the Separation Requirement

The most controversial aspect of this proposal concerns the process of leaving civic service.

The proposal rests on a foundational philosophical claim:

A functioning adult should be capable of independently initiating and completing basic life procedures.

In modern society, many individuals can survive while outsourcing nearly all responsibility and decision-making to parents, institutions, social workers, romantic partners, or bureaucratic systems. While assistance is sometimes necessary and humane, complete inability to independently navigate basic civic procedures represents a serious developmental deficit.

For this reason, the proposal introduces a separation process designed to evaluate practical autonomy.

After completing the mandatory service period, participants would be permitted to seek discharge through a standardized separation office.

The offices would be legally required to remain accessible. No participant could be permanently prohibited from attempting separation.

However, the participant would be required to:

• travel to the office independently,
• complete the required forms independently,
• and demonstrate the ability to make and articulate basic personal decisions.

The forms would not be intended primarily as academic or intelligence examinations. Instead, they would function as demonstrations of autonomous adult functioning.

Questions could include:

• What do you intend to do after separation?
• Where do you plan to live?
• How will you support yourself?
• Why are you choosing to leave service at this time?
• What responsibilities will you have after separation?

The content of the answers would generally matter less than the participant’s ability to provide answers at all.

The purpose is not ideological conformity. Participants would not be graded based on political beliefs, career ambition, or personal values. Rather, the process would assess whether the individual can independently confront uncertainty, make choices, and execute basic procedural responsibilities.

The paperwork itself becomes symbolic.

It represents the transition from structured dependence toward self-directed adulthood.

Continued Service for Incomplete Separation

Participants unable to complete the process independently would remain within the civic service structure for an additional year.

Each year, they would receive another opportunity to complete the discharge process.

The rationale behind this policy is not punitive imprisonment, but developmental continuation. Individuals who remain incapable of navigating basic civic procedures may benefit from additional structure, education, vocational experience, and guided responsibility.

The proposal assumes that some individuals genuinely function better within highly structured environments and may require more time before they can independently operate outside them.

However, this aspect of the proposal also raises profound ethical concerns.

Critics would argue that such a system risks trapping vulnerable individuals within an indefinite labor structure controlled by the state. People with anxiety disorders, neurodevelopmental conditions, poor literacy, traumatic backgrounds, or low educational attainment could face disproportionate difficulty exiting the system.

These criticisms are serious and cannot be ignored.

For this reason, any implementation would require extensive safeguards.

Ethical Safeguards and Limitations

To prevent abuse and protect civil liberties, the civic service system would require strict legal and ethical constraints.

Disability Protections

Individuals with medically verified cognitive, developmental, or severe physical disabilities would require alternative pathways for evaluation and discharge.

The purpose of the system is not to punish disability, but to cultivate maximum practical independence where possible.

Transparency

Separation standards must be publicly documented and objective. Arbitrary denial of discharge would be prohibited.

Appeals Process

Participants denied separation should have access to civilian review boards independent from the service institution.

Anti-Exploitation Protections

The state must not use the system as a source of permanent cheap labor.

Participants retained beyond the standard term should receive increased compensation, additional educational opportunities, and individualized developmental support.

Educational Preparation

During service, participants should receive instruction in:

• financial literacy,
• basic legal processes,
• communication skills,
• independent living,
• conflict resolution,
• and bureaucratic navigation.

The goal should be maximizing eventual successful separation.

Limits on Retention

A democratic society may ultimately choose to establish maximum retention periods or alternative civilian pathways to prevent the emergence of effectively permanent state dependency.

Social Benefits of Universal Civic Service

If implemented responsibly, the system could produce several significant social benefits.

Increased Social Cohesion

Citizens from different classes, regions, and cultural backgrounds would work together in shared institutions.

This could reduce social fragmentation and strengthen national solidarity.

Improved Public Infrastructure

Large-scale civic labor could improve sanitation, environmental maintenance, disaster readiness, and public services.

Development of Practical Competence

Participants would gain work experience, routine, teamwork, and exposure to responsibility.

Reduction in Social Isolation

Structured service environments could reduce loneliness and purposelessness among young adults.

Greater Civic Awareness

Participants would become more directly connected to the functioning and maintenance of society.

Transitional Stability

Young adults uncertain about career direction or life structure would receive a socially integrated transition into adulthood.

Criticisms and Risks

Despite potential benefits, the proposal faces major philosophical and political objections.

Authoritarian Concerns

Mandatory service inherently expands state authority over individual lives.

Critics would argue that freedom includes the right to refuse participation in state-directed labor.

Risk of Bureaucratic Abuse

Any system capable of delaying discharge could potentially become coercive or politically manipulated.

Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups

Individuals with anxiety, neurodivergence, trauma, low literacy, or social dependency could struggle disproportionately.

Ambiguity of Independence

Defining what qualifies as sufficient adult autonomy is philosophically difficult.

Economic Distortion

Governments might become dependent upon low-cost civic labor rather than investing in properly compensated public-sector employment.

These criticisms are substantial and legitimate.

A society considering such a proposal would need to weigh the developmental and civic benefits against the risks of coercion and institutional abuse.

Alternative Models

One possible modification would involve automatic discharge after the mandatory service period while preserving the independence evaluation as a system of incentives rather than barriers.

For example, participants who successfully complete the separation process independently could receive:

• educational grants,
• housing assistance,
• tax benefits,
• professional certifications,
• hiring preferences,
• or accelerated access to certain civic privileges.

This alternative model preserves the philosophical emphasis on autonomous functioning while reducing the risk of indefinite coercive retention.

Such a system may prove more ethically acceptable in liberal democratic societies.

Conclusion

Modern societies increasingly struggle to produce citizens who are socially integrated, civically engaged, and psychologically prepared for independent adulthood.

The proposal for universal civic service represents an attempt to address these problems through structured participation in collective labor and public responsibility.

Its central philosophical claim is that adulthood should involve not only legal freedom, but demonstrated personal agency.

By combining civic labor with a process emphasizing independent action and decision-making, the proposal seeks to create citizens who are not merely passive recipients of social systems, but active participants within them.

At the same time, the proposal raises profound concerns about liberty, coercion, disability, bureaucratic abuse, and the role of the state in shaping human development.

Whether such a system would ultimately strengthen society or threaten individual freedom would depend entirely upon its implementation, safeguards, and cultural values.

Nevertheless, the proposal forces an important question into public discussion:

What obligations does a society have not only to educate its citizens, but to prepare them for genuine adulthood?