You get to keep only enough to maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, the rest of it has to go towards improving the world in some way.

Edit: Given the previous rules that you must maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, would you rather choose to opt out and not have the money at all?

  • CannedYeet@lemmy.world
    2·
    11 days ago

    I’d create a new city from scratch, sort of kick-starter style with like-minded residents and businesses. It would be built up with good public transit from the beginning and solid anti-NIMBY policies. Something radical like not being able to own your property. Instead the city would be owned collectively and you could have shares. But you would never have an incentive to deny development to increase your own home’s value.

    There’d be participatory planning and cutting edge democracy: participatory, deliberative, representative.