Make a rule change pass only if the people it hurts most are not left worse off than before
In short
- When lawmakers change taxes, pensions, or punishments, they first identify the people who would lose the most.
- A change that would make those people's lives worse than before does not pass as it is.
- To pass, the same law must include some kind of makeup support for those people.
- People who are not yet born also count as one of the most disadvantaged groups.
If this comes true
On the day a pension reform is decided, a woman who used to sew clothes in a factory and now lives alone gets a rent support notice in the same envelope as the reform announcement, covering what she lost, so she does not have to cut back on heating oil this winter.
Perhaps
The makeup calculations might take years, and while the repair of government finances is delayed, insurance payments for younger generations may slowly creep up.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers changes to laws and systems that broadly affect people's lives and freedom, such as taxes, social security, pensions, criminal punishments, and public utility rates. A government or lawmaker who proposes a change must, at the same time, identify the group of people who would be hurt most in income, freedom, or services, and must estimate the effect on them. An agency independent of the government checks that estimate. If it finds that the most disadvantaged group would be worse off than before the change, the change cannot pass by an ordinary majority vote. To pass, the law must either include makeup for that group in the same bill, such as extra benefits, a grace period for the transition, or a lighter burden, or win a special majority in the legislature. Future generations are treated as a group that can be hurt most too, through pushed-off debt or environmental harm, and their losses are estimated by the same steps. When punishments change, the effect counts not only for the person who committed the crime but also for the family who lose their means of living because of the punishment. In emergencies such as war or a major disaster, this condition can be set aside for a limited time, but once that time is over, the change must go through the process again.
BenefitsCount the people who lose first when making decisions
The strength of this proposal is that it turns the path of least resistance, pushing the burden onto the weak, into the path that takes the most work. Because a change that hurts the most disadvantaged needs makeup, the government has to look hard for ways not to hurt those people starting from the design stage of a reform. As a result, the burden gets properly shared with groups that are loud and have bargaining power. Putting future generations in the same frame puts a brake, right now, on decisions that push off debt or environmental harm. Counting families when punishments change makes visible the chain in which a punishment takes away a child's future beyond the person punished, and it makes lawmakers put ways to ease that into the law. From the people's side, even if they themselves ended up in the weakest place in society, they can feel safe that a change in the system will not make the floor fall out beneath them. That sense of safety raises trust in reform itself and also makes necessary change easier to accept.
DrawbacksEven needed reforms stall and the current system hardens
Every big reform leaves some people worse off than before. If this condition is imposed, even a reform that fixes the tax or pension system so it can keep going might become impossible because the cost of makeup piles up. If reform stops, the current system stays as it is, and there is a bitter irony: even if the current system is already unfair, it becomes harder to change. Also, how to draw the line around the most disadvantaged group becomes a political fight in itself. Some groups will claim that they are the most disadvantaged, and the agency that does the estimates will come under heavy pressure. Depending on whether future generations or poor people today are seen as the most disadvantaged, the conclusion can come out exactly opposite. If a special majority is left as a loophole, a strong ruling party can easily set the condition aside, and if it is not left, a small opposition can block an important national decision. The heavier the process becomes, the more there is also a danger that quick help for people who are truly in trouble is delayed.
Learn the background
Debates about justice seem to split into many separate areas, such as fairness in sharing, the severity of punishment, and the burden placed between generations. But in every area the same pattern appears. When a system changes, its costs tend to land on people with quiet voices. In reforms meant to repair public finances, industries with organizations and generations with many voters avoid the burden, and it is passed on to single parents, people with disabilities, families of people in prison, and young people who cannot yet vote, as well as generations not yet born. Each reform, taken alone, is explained as unavoidable for the good of everyone, and it passes properly by majority vote. Yet over time, the same people lose again and again. Majority rule works well to protect the interests of the majority in the room, but it is weak at stopping the burden from piling up on a minority. Rules requiring an assessment of impact exist in many places, but because a bad result cannot stop a law from passing, the reports just pile up.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes