I'm not really sure what Social Security has to do with this.  You're saying that rather than paying into the Social Security system, people should have to pay into the state banks/retirement programs?  Or are you saying that people would just have more money to put into things like a state bank if they didn't have to pay into Social Security? 

Why don't you add a separate idea about Social Security?  I'm interested to see what you have in mind.

I wholeheartedly agree about DC. I'm not so sure about changing Senate representation more generally, though. I recognize the fairness argument and that the historical reasons no longer exist, but I like that the Senate is a smaller body, that its members are more high-minded, and that they represent the state as a whole rather than districts.

I would be open to some kind of apportionment of Senators among states based on population, maybe each state would get between 1 and 5 Senators, who would represent the state as a whole. This probably wouldn't completely address your fairness concern, but I think it would help, and would keep some of the good things about the Senate in place. I would post this as a related argument, but there's no chance it would ever happen, since it would require a constitutional amendment, and the smaller states would never agree. They should, however, agree to allow Senate representation for DC.

I don't mean to "pick" on attorneys.  I am an attorney working at a big law firm, and I see how much pro bono work helps for both attorneys and clients.  I have worked many 70 hour (and higher) weeks, and I don't think it's too much to ask lawyers to spend an average of one hour every two weeks helping others.  State bars have a number of requirements to remain active, including hours of CLE courses.  I frankly think that hands-on experience is much more helpful to new attorneys than attending CLE courses on topics for which attendees often have no context. 

I don't know much about licensing requirements for doctors, therapists or other professionals.  If they are similar, and there is a way to enforce compliance, then I do think that they should be required to provide services to the less fortunate.  However, the legal system is somewhat unique because it requires voluntary service to function -- for example, jury service.

Thanks for your reply (and it's always helpful to think something through with a devil's advocate)!  I agree that it's a good idea to make this a requirement for other service professionals -- I hadn't thought about that.  One of us should look into their licensing requirements and add it to the site :).

I thought about it a little more, and even if my proposal isn't constitutional, it would take a while for a challenge to the law to make its way to the Supreme Court, and during that interim period support might build for abolishing the death penalty. I think I'd want Congress to do this even if it's constitutionality is suspect.

Life imprisonment is enough to protect society.  I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd be surprised if people who commit capital murder are more likely to endanger fellow inmates -- remember, only certain murders are eligible for capital punishment, and the people who commit those murders are not necessarily more violent, since they include things like murder during the commission of a felony, and even an accomplice to a felony who did not pull the trigger can get the death penalty. 

I would be more open to something like capital punishment only for people who commit murder in prison.  I think that might actually have a deterrent effect, it only kills people who have shown that life imprisonment is not enough to protect society, and I assume there would be more certainty about who was guilty, because of close monitoring by prison guards.

I don't think we can expect children to make the healthiest choices, no matter what their parents teach them, and many parents don't have the awareness or ability to help their kids make the right choices.  In any event, children will still be free to choose among the healthier options, so their "choice" wouldn't be taken away altogether.

More funding should be available from the government so schools don't have to rely on advertisers.  But if schools properly prioritized healthfulness instead of just looking to make the most money, they could take soda or junk food makers off the table and enter into deals with companies that make healthier snacks, like Kashi or Food Should Taste Good.