AI Billionaires Are Starting to Get Scared
8d 9m ago by lemmy.today/u/StopTech in fuck_ai from futurism.com
cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/AntiAI@lemmy.blahaj.zone/t/2771990
As data centers are shut down by angry mobs and AI surveillance cameras are ripped from their poles, the world’s tech billionaires and CEOs are waking up to the reality that the masses are, broadly speaking, not on board with their plan to automate the world with AI.
We're also not on board with their plans to keep evading taxes, or their plans to keep running secret private islands.
They will be desperately trying to find a way to leave the government carrying the can
That’s one way “AI” is insidious because it’s a crutch for workers. If the system stops delivering, it’ll cry out like one of those “too big to fail” banksters and beg for bailout.
Didn't his daughter just buy an island or something? Not that secret.
I'm okay with them evading taxes, just let everyone do that
I’m not.
We live in a society and enjoy or use services that benefit all. Schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. all need to be paid for. I have no problem paying for taxes to do my part, and have never had a desire to avoid that responsibility. I live in a society. It benefits me, and I pay back into it, just as everyone should.
I have a problem with the people who have the most to give not doing so. They’re leeching off society without giving back to it.
I can tell you grew up watching Mr Rodgers.
I mean that as a compliment by the way.
I did, him and Bob Ross. They’re both missed, and I hope their syndication can be a benefit to young people today. (Edit - though from what I’ve seen, the kids are alright. Certainly more compassionate and empathetic today than my cohort or generations before).
Not sure if the shows still air, but some is on YouTube, and I donate to PBS monthly just in case.
Yeah. I grew up thinking all generations hate the younger generations. Then the younger generations get older and hate the younger younger generations.
Nope. Turns out that was just a boomer thing. Gen X typically doesn't have opinions on anything. Millenials just hate the boomers, and Gen-Z just straight up aren't having kids.
But I'm whats called a Xenial. Half genX, half millenial. And I've never thought of the younger generations as bad. I feel bad for them. 40 years before their birth, the world wasn't a huge dumpster fire. And then reagan happened, and things have been sliding downward ever since. By the time Gen-Z was born, it was already too late. Then on top of that, their childhood was centered around covid, and now trump being a massive dick. Just in general, at all times.
So I don't get mad at the younger generations. I kinda feel bad for them. The world sucks, and it's the only world they've ever known.
I don't get mad at the younger generations. I kinda feel bad for them. The world sucks, and it's the only world they've ever known.
Pretty much. I’m in my 40s, late millennial. Shit sucked, watching opportunities previous generations had slipping away as I hit adulthood and realized what an absolute mess everything was, and that everything I’d been taught to succeed at life was a lie.
Ended up doing okay for myself thanks to getting into IT and dropping out of college before I racked up more debt but it still took forever to pay off. I managed to get to six figures a few years back, pay off my debts, and I’m able to make things work financially thanks to moving to the boonies and living small, and saving a lot. I also lucked out with good timing and had a home built when the interest rates were still around 3% and paid points to lower it more. My mortgage now is less than I paid in rent in 2021, and rates are up since then.
And now… I mean I’m okay, but seeing everything happening is stressful. No idea how future employment is gonna go with all the AI mess (I’m sure I’ll be fine, but it’s all up on air):, and I don’t think the kids today will even have the opportunities that I had early career when I took jobs that were shitty but at least gave me opportunities to learn and skill up and get various career certs to move up and do better.
I was lamenting the lack of opportunities back then, feeling like I was always one step ahead of inflation, debt, and potential homelessness, and it’s even harder for today’s young adults! I honestly don’t know how someone not already established would even get a foot in the door today, and everything’s gone absolutely crazy.
Tomkatt, I love the way you write and the concerns you expressed for our youth today.
I fully agree with everything you've said and I just need to reach out to tell you that you are a great human being.
All the best, be well, and let's hope things work out for the common man. Thanks again!
Gen X typically doesn’t have opinions on anything
We have opinions on everything, trust me.
We don't advertise them as much. We were the last generation that was told to be seen, and not heard, maybe that's why. Or, perhaps it's because we were the first of the screwed generations and we're nihilistic. Or both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter. None of this matters.
I feel like that should be taken as a compliment regardless of how it's meant
I have a problem with the people who have the most to give not doing so.
Not only that, but have also benefited the most from the services and infrastructure.
Dont down vote me to oblivion, but ive been told they (gov) dont need our taxes one bit. If they need money they print it. Taxation is a scam, basically, and the majority goes to war, right? Or used to.
Why is it I still in 2026 can't easily see where every single cent of my taxes goes? Why? Because it goes directly in government pockets is why.
"I've been told"
brilliant.
By the very bestest most smartestest people, I'm sure
Thats actually why i said it. I never said it was true.
The person who told me it is also not reputable either. I just wanted to bring it up because who knows if its true or not? We dont know what hapoens behind the scenes.
We dont know what hapoens behind the scenes.
what would you like to know because i have written a few laws.
You think laws apply to government, billionaires, or cops?
i'll take that as a no.
I mean sure I'm here to learn. I just have 0 belief that any law is binding anyone in those groups, based on who us walking around free right now who should be in prison for life or worse.
I mean sure I’m here to learn.
no you're here to complain.
I won't waste either of our time then. I just have no belief that laws are followed by the modern monarchy, thats all.
I won’t downvote, but whoever told you that was telling stories. Yes, money gets mishandled at times, and we’re currently in a period of absurd corruption, but overall governmental programs are very efficiently run compared to a lot of private sector since there’s zero need for profit.
The government is also essentially the largest negotiating body in the country for bulk rate bids.
If they need money they print it
Which is a leading cause of inflation. It’s very conservative financial behavior. Budgets need to be balanced. Republicans don’t bother and tend to leave the mess for whoever comes after. Democrats aren’t a ton better, but budgets are at least considered, and the only time we’ve ever had a surplus budget in my lifetime was under the democrats.
Its amazing how the psyop works to brainwash us into thinking government is less efficient than private corporations. This is an argument I have a lot with people who worship musky and think he should run the world.
Right, we are currently in awful inflation even now!
Its hard to explain to people that what theyre saying is false though. How can we prove tax money really goes where they say? There doesn't seem to be actual proof.
The only thing worth noting is private industry with publicly traded options will always need to show quarter over quarter profit (or best effort to do so) as a literal legal obligation to shareholders. They have a legal obligation to profit as much as possible within legal limits, and even skirting them where legislation is up for debate. That means in the long run, going private will never be the cheapest option.
The government has no such obligation, and no need to profit. Their only “shareholders” are the American people, and voting essentially makes us the board to remove them if we feel their choices are not to the public benefit.
taxation removes money from the overall monetary supply. Central banks can't 'run out' of money and do not require that spending be 'matched' to a tax base. There is a practical limit on how much money can be printed, in terms of productive capacity but also inflationary pressure, but mostly the boomer narrative of 'fiscal responsibility' is there to discipline popular expectations about social services and public spending generally. The logic of austerity is a leash around the neck of the working class, working silently to condition them to interpret spending which benefits their class interests as being 'irresponsible'.
That stuff has a name, and it's called MMT, modern monetary theory, and it's generally considered a bad idea.
Yes, the government can in principle just print money, but that has consequences, and they're not pretty. The understanding of the problems this was causing has been the historical reason for the independence of the central banks from the executive branches.
There is a branch of the left that doesn't like the idea that there are limits to public spending, but now that Trump is trying to take control of the Federal Reserve we just might find out how much of a bad idea it is to have the central bank under the executive.
The shortest version of why MMT is very dubious at best, is that if you print too much money you get inflation, and MMT proponents acknowledge this. You know how they suggest controlling inflation? By levying taxes. And there you go, taxes are back.
BTW the breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent is here: (at least if you're in the US, which it sounds like you are)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
Thank you, I will read up on this!
Well yes but printing it is a horrible idea cuz inflation.
but ive been told they (gov) dont need our taxes one bit. If they need money they print it. Taxation is a scam, basically, and the majority goes to war, right?
you were told incorrectly.
Apparently so
Government "services" are a net negative at this point
Classic neolib playbook. Defund public services so much that they barely function, claim that the government can't do anything right and/or that public services are "net negative", then privatize everything and enshittify it even more while extracting as much value from people as possible.
But am I wrong though? We have to form new governments that actually listen to people and has their consent before we give them taxes. Any other kind of government is just a mafia.
Not paying taxes because you don't like the government or what the tax dollars are spent on is problematic. It's a subjective judgement. If you are justified in not paying taxes for what you don't like, someone else is justified in not paying taxes when the government does things that you like just because they don't like it.
The purpose of democracy is to find some kind of consensus. If you don't like what the government is doing, find like minded people and work to change minds and the government.
The only way to justify not paying taxes is to argue that you are being denied the ability to participate in the government system and have no legitimate recourse. Honestly, we are at that point now that the government is transparently corrupt. That's just not the angle you were arguing.
Genocide.
I don't like it. Some do. Am I morally obligated to fund it with my taxes?
You don't fund Genocide with your taxes. You pay taxes to the government and the government chooses to fund the genocide.
If you vote for a candidate who wants to vote against genocide but that candidate loses and the winner votes in favor of genocide... did you support genocide by simply casting a vote?
It's a democracy (in theory). We pay taxes and we collectively decide what to spend one money on. It doesn't matter how terrible the cause is. It changes nothing beyond how vigorously you need to oppose those who want to do terrible things.
If there is no way to forcefully avoid our government from participating in evils, why should I participate? Why should I not dedicate my every waking moment to dismantling that which aids evil? Do you feel that we, we the people, actually decide what our government does? Do you actually believe that the choices are free and open and reflective of the beliefs of the common American? That is the promise given in the contract that says I am to pay the government, and if the government is not going to fulfill its side, why should I?
What other mechanism does the populace have to voice their displeasure with the actions of the people voted in? Because nothing stops people from doing an about face once in office.
Do you feel that we, we the people, actually decide what our government does? Do you actually believe that the choices are free and open and reflective of the beliefs of the common American?
At this point in time, no and no. I'm not arguing against doing whatever it takes to stop the transparent corruption and greed that has taken power over the American government through the Trump administration. I'm arguing against the notion that, generally, not paying taxes is justified because you don't like what those taxes fund.
That is the promise given in the contract that says I am to pay the government, and if the government is not going to fulfill its side, why should I?
This is what I said earlier:
The only way to justify not paying taxes is to argue that you are being denied the ability to participate in the government system and have no legitimate recourse. Honestly, we are at that point now that the government is transparently corrupt. That's just not the angle you were arguing.
You don’t fund Genocide with your taxes. You pay taxes to the government and the government chooses to fund the genocide.
So, we fund genocide with our taxes. The least you could do is acknowledge it.
Paying money into a pool from which good and bad things may be funded and having a specific bad thing (SBT) get funded is not the same as funding a SBT.
If I refuse to pay my $1000 tax bill and the government decides to cut food aid to needy children by $1000 to compensate while still funding that SBT... was I funding the SBT or was I feeding needy children?
If I pay my taxes to a government that doesn't do the SBT, and they decide to start doing the SBT that fiscal year... did I fund the SBT?
It's simple - I was paying my taxes. The government chose to allocate some of that to do the SBT.
Yes, we have no legitimate recourse. We never did. For example, the US constitution wasn't legitimately ratified and even if it was, that was 250 years ago. Did we agree to be under it? And even if 99% did agree to be under it, what is the recourse of the 1%? Their only recourse is find another country. But every country is like this and none of them have the consent of the governed. It's an oligopoly of power-hungry countries. True recourse would be the ability to form your own country. Secession, not only by states but by any group or even an individual. Without that we just get a choice between which prison we prefer.
Lets explore a hypothetical. A theoretical person, who I'll randomly call Ronald Drump, loves raping and torturing. He does it every chance he gets. Can't get enough of it. Men, women, children - all are fair game in his eyes. He's got enough money for body guards to make sure he isn't interrupted by peasants. He doesn't like the law of the land. The law says he must not do what he wants to do and have a good time. Jerking off in the middle of the street to the tortured screams of his victims is apparently against the law! They send Police to stop him!
He didn't agree to these laws. He never consented to be governed by them. Everywhere he goes, the government tells him to stop. He can't escape it! Is he justified in refusing to comply? He has no recourse! He's not welcome anywhere. Is the freedom to choose what tyrannical government he wants to live under really a choice at all? Why can't he just establish the Republic of Ronald on main Street and be free from the unjust system?
Edit: We live in a society. Democratic rule of the majority over the minority in its simplest form is not ideal, but most of humanity has been moving away from that simple method bit by bit. Laws established by the majority that try to protect the rights of those in the minority, to shield them from such outcomes. Its not perfect, but it's a work in progress. Without consensus of some kind society regresses to might makes right and tyranny of the powerful.
You don't choose where or to whom you are born. That's just life. It sucks, but there is no way to change that especially since you have no concept of any of these things or what you believe until years after the event. Raging against the unfairness of these facts seems... silly to me?
It helps to understand what you're arguing against before arguing against it. Then you wouldn't have wasted time on your comment.
It was a long, elaborate attempt to say that, wherever you go, you will be affected by those around and coerced to accommodate the majority of them in one way or another. That's how societies work. Lamenting that you have no recourse is a waste of time.
Also, if 99% of them are in agreement about how things should be done and you are the remaining 1% there is a good chance that you are the problem and not the 99%.
Now, I've not denied that things are bad and that things need to change. We don't disagree on that point. I just think your logic is fucked and leads to worse things in the end.
Wherever you go there will be child abusers. So therefore we shouldn't lament it or try to improve things?
99% was just an exaggerated figure for a hypothetical that could be raised against my view. The point is that minorities don't cease to have a right to autonomy just because they're in the minority. The 99% could also have a strong vested interest to abuse the 1%.
The point is that minorities don't cease to have a right to autonomy just because they're in the minority. The 99% could also have a strong vested interest to abuse the 1%.
I agree that minorities shouldn't inherently have their rights forfeit to the majority. I agree that, in most cases, the majority should protect the rights of minorities and that doing so is often in their own best interests. You fail to miss an enormous caveat - this is not an absolute.
Should those child abusers, as a minority group within the population, have their right to abuse children protected from the rule of the majority? Is it the tyranny of the majority to constrain/limit the actions of that minority just because they are in the minority? Should they have a place where they can go to be free of majority rule and live only by the constraints that they themselves feel are appropriate?
This is why governance is not a simple thing. There are variations, spectrums, and extremes within the population. Ultimately, the majority must, to some degree, have rule over minorities. We should do our best to determine which "freedoms/rights" should be protected and which can, and in some cases, must be infringed upon.
Obviously, I'm not advocating that any particular minority, particularly when it comes to ethnicity or nation of origin, is inferior or deserves to be ruled over. However, due to the nature of the system, it unfortunately can and does happen. It's a constant struggle.
I do note you use the word "autonomy". Due to the varied interpretation of that word, it means nothing to me in this argument. If you want to be more specific, feel free, but it is just a word. What it means and what should be covered by any rules that use the word will, ultimately, be determined by... the majority.
Of course I don't think anybody has the right to abuse others, but that's true whether the majority favor it or not. Sometimes the majority favors it, so majority rule is not a solution in that case.
Anyway my problem is not with rules being decided by the majority - although I think a supermajority would be better. (Thanks for graciously asking what I am actually proposing, which I will now explain). My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate. This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country.
It's not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that. Nor can somebody make their own country as a shield for immoral activity unless those activities can somehow be committed entirely within that person's own land. There are still very immoral things that people can do in the privacy of their own homes, but most immoral activities involve harming other people, which usually requires leaving home or tricking people to cross the border and enter that person's home, which would need to be clearly marked as a separate country in order for its laws to have legitimacy upon visitors. The remaining immoral activities would either be of a self-harming nature, damaging to their own environment, preventing competent adults from leaving the country or neglecting duties over children or non-competent adults. The first two are less concerning, naturally self-punishing and will incur hostility from neighboring countries once the effects spill over into them. The third makes the country illegitimate because it means the population are being held against their will and the fourth if particularly egregious makes the country morally bankrupt, so in either case the population and foreign countries are justified in overthrowing that government and punishing those who behaved unconscionably.
So in this way people with very different views have the freedom to go their own ways and pursue their own little utopias as long as they aren't forcing themselves on others or doing very heinous things to their own people. This should lead to stronger communities, happier day-to-day lives and - most importantly - it is a just system because it is based on consent. Even if our current system led to great outcomes, it would still be unjust because it is forced upon us and that alone is enough reason to abandon it and seek a just alternative.
My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be
That's where I see the problem as well.
This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country.
It's not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that.
But.. what if they are born in that land?
Here is my problem. Your proposition is prescriptive. It is what you believe would lead to the best outcome. You make subjective, moral judgements and state that those actions justify overthrowing a country or "punishing those who behave unconscionably". How have you determined those judgements to justify such actions? The entire system is your ideal, not necessarily the ideal of everyone. It would have to be enforced to be feasible but what if not everyone consented to be in that system?
You also seem to think that people can live in their own isolated societies that they consent to be ruled under, completely ignoring the unavoidable reality that everyone can impact everyone, regardless of whether they are neighbors or live in another country. Am I free to hoard rare resources other desperately need because my country sits on them? Am I free to utilize cuthroat practices to gain power for my country over yours? Who decides how these things are resolved and what is ok and what is not? If countries are working together to compromise, now both countrys' citizens are forced to compromise on their utopia or forced to endure whatever neighboring countries might do to them.
I'm not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can't control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled. It is of course subjective whether a government has lost its legitimacy by harming other countries, harming its own people, or enabling evil within its borders. Country A may see country B as evil and illegitimate because it aborts babies and decide to wage war. Other countries might see this as unjustified aggression and help defend B. But this isn't really any different to what happens already. Only currently the wars are waged by unaccountable governments who often have very different views from the population and the wars aren't usually about ideology but power. Wars for power should be less frequent if an individual right to secession is widely accepted because any people or lands that are captured must have a right to break away or the government will look illegitimate.
I'm not saying the system I propose will lead to the best outcome. I'm saying it's more just and I think it will lead to better outcomes than current systems. But the emphasis is on being more just. Trying to get the best outcome is impossible because people don't agree on what that is, and the utilitarian pursuit of better outcomes could enable all kinds of atrocities as an alleged means to that end. Giving people more freedom can lead to bad outcomes because they might use that freedom to self-harm, but it's far more just than restricting everyone's freedom and in any case it probably will lead to better outcomes too because the power to restrict freedoms tends to be abused.
what if not everyone consented to be in that system?
I'm saying people can form any kind of society they want. It can be communist, fascist, open borders, closed borders, just don't expect to be treated nicely by neighboring countries if you're harming them or they think you're doing heinous things within your own borders. And I think not allowing people to leave your country should be seen as a heinous restriction on freedom. Is it possible that some people will want a system of government that doesn't let people leave? I suppose a retarded or malevolent majority could want that, but the minority who don't want that should be allowed to leave and the fact that they aren't would make the government illegitimate to my mind.
I feel like I'm failing to communicate the issues I'm seeing here.
My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate.
You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?
It's not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that.
Lets say my parents were in such a society. In this society, they are theocratic and Christian. They punish anyone caught committing a "homosexual act". Now imagine I am caught kissing someone of my own gender in, I don't know, middle school, and I'm punished harshly. How is this society any more just for me just because my parents were able to consent to it? I am born into this society - I did not choose it or consent to its governance. Can I, as a middle school kid, just... go to another society before I'm able to explore who I am? Where do the resources come from? Who cares for me while I travel and after I get there?
Now imagine I'm someone else. I join that same theocratic society and later realize I'm bisexual and want to leave for a different society that is more accepting and tolerant of my sexuality. Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?
I'm not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can't control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled.
But you are proposing a more "just" starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?
You are also more or less hand waving the problem of international conflict by assuming it will be in most countries best interests to police each other... but only to the extent that it doesn't disrupt each society's ability to be what they want to be? Of course, there will be some clear line that most countries will recognize as the point at which it becomes justifiable to suppress that freedom should the citizens of another country cross it...yeah, again, this sounds more less like just hitting some magic reset button and watching everything go bad to what it is now but with all the assholes concentrated together and everyone else divided by nuanced opinions that they may or may not share with the younger generations...?
Look, I get it. Things suck and it would be great if people who be who they want to be, do what they want to do, and everyone would more or less get along. Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible and might suck for some other people. Part of that is taxes.
While everything is kind of fucked right now, I still don't think it's good to set the precedent of "If I don't like what the government is doing I don't have to pay my taxes."
You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?
No that is correct.
Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am?
This is my own opinion, but children (the specific age we're talking about depends on the subject and the culture) aren't generally competent enough to make important choices like moving to another country and therefore it's usually in the child's best interest to have their parents determine things for them like where they live. It also seems part of the natural order that the parents/guardians of a child get to determine how they are raised, including what moral values they are taught. While I may not agree with someone teaching their child to be Muslim, who am I to deprive them of the right to raise their children according to their values?
Some societies might decide to give children rights to autonomy, and I'm inclined to think that a society should be allowed to try that, although it will end in disaster sooner or later and other countries might in my opinion have a moral obligation to step in eventually.
But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?
No I'm not proposing a starting point. I'm proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don't like the country they're in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life. This means at any point in time the country is comprised of people (and their children and mentally incompetent dependents) who consent to be under that system. That's what makes the government legitimate at all times and not just for the first generation.
Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible
But why are we stuck in this situation? Why couldn't we have people separate into groups that agree on things like they naturally want to? Why are we forced to make some compromise between the group A that wants X to be illegal and group B that wants X to be legal? And then either group A is forced to violate their consciences supporting and paying taxes for what they consider evil or group B is punished for what they think is fine or even a moral duty? That just makes groups A and B constantly fight each other and form cliques and the country is divided and inefficient. Why? I think the reason is obvious. Because those who rule the country do not want to give up their power, most of which they would do by allowing secession. But things don't need to be this way. With enough public recognition of the right to individual secession it would have to be allowed. And once one country allows it many will want to move there and other countries would be pressured to uphold the right.
I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”
But how do can you deny the argument that taxation is theft to those who never consented to their government? It's just taking people's money under threat of force and using it however the illegitimate government wishes. Even if the money was only used for the most upright causes with maximal efficiency it would still be theft because it lacks consent. Charities can't take my money unless I made an agreement with them, and in the same way governments can't unless I made an agreement without coercion.
No I'm not proposing a starting point. I'm proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don't like the country they're in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life.
You ignored a massive point that i repeated in both my examples.
Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?
Relocating is not a trivial task and, to a degree and depending on where we are moving to, we have the freedom to do that already. The vast, vast majority of societies don't forbid their citizens from leaving if they aren't wanted for a crime... it's the destination societies that place limitations on who they want to admit and how. Is that a right you want to deny to societies in this utopia? If you are free to associate with who you want, why can't you limit who can associate with you?
It's also not trivial to find land to start a new society. Most land is claimed at this point. If one society or another has already laid claim to every piece of land, what then? Do you propose that unutilized land is unable to be claimed? Can a society that values the natural environment not claim and limit how much of it can be utilized or claimed by its citizens?
This is what I'm saying - this society assumes unlimited resources for relocation and the formation of new societies. It grants rights that, ultimately, infringe on those same rights when they might be required by others.
Where does land for new societies come from? Where do the resources to freely relocate come from? How is this so drastically different from the forces that make it difficult to relocate in most existing societies?
When resources and land are unavailable for your utopia, the core premise is removed and we're where we are right now.
Of course you're wrong. That's just Libertarian/Ancap nonsense...
Forming governments is ancap? Sure, dude.
Not paying taxes because 'government is wrong'
I said bad governments don't deserve taxes. Do you think every government is justified to take as much taxes as it wants however it wants? No? Then shut up! :)
I said bad governments don’t deserve taxes. Do you think every government is justified to take as much taxes as it wants however it wants?
These are two separate things. Do bad governments deserve taxes? How else will roads, transit, schools, parks, etc be paid for? So yes, I believe even bad governments not only deserve taxes, but require taxes to function. Are governments justified in taking as much tax as they want whenever they want? Of course not. Especially since those taxes often don't fund roads, schools, parks, etc but rather imperialist wars and genocide.
Unless you're working towards the goal reforming or establishing a new government, your actions are purely performative. It sounds like you simply don't like paying taxes (who does really?). This is pure Libertarianism.
Do you go to local meetings to vote on tax codes? Do you vote in progressive candidates who have a more favorable tax code? Are you fighting billionaires and corporations who pay virtually ZERO taxes? Are you protesting wars and genocide in the streets? Are you fighting ICE and their bloated, unlimited budget for killing and kidnapping? Are you going to town council/board meetings and protesting AI and Data Centers?
No? Then shut up!
I'm a Socialist and I'm actively working towards all those goals, and more. You are individualistic. You think individual actions will achieve whatever it is you think your goal is. It will not. We need collective action of the working class, united in a fight against the Capitalist class, who (and you're right, here!) do not represent us.
What was your excuse before this administration?
Every administration has been the same, and it's all based on an illusion of democracy and a form of government we never got to vote on and have no way of overturning.
There it is. Knew there’d be one.
If you seriously think every administration is the same, I don’t know what to say. It’s not easy to communicate when someone is both deaf and blind.
Of course they're not exactly the same but they're all working toward the same end goal of subjugating the masses instead of doing their bidding. The Republicans pretend to support traditional values and the Democrats pretend to support welfare but they both actually promote surveillance, war, big companies, environmental damage, subversion of nature, anti-human technologies, wealth extraction from the public, global government and so on.
Taxes are money collected by the government ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living and care, as well as essential services. Taxes are important. Don’t blame taxes just cause America can’t use tax money correctly.
Good taxes yes.
How about the taxes funding war and dumpys ballroom?
America can’t use tax money correctly
It was mentioned in the message you replied to.
Youre right, me bad
taxation and government spending are two different things
So you're saying taxes are good when we have a government that serves the people? So how about we require the government to serve the people before we let them take taxes?
So how about we require the government to serve the people
And what are you doing to work towards this goal?
I could answer that question but you obviously aren't interested in the answer, you're just looking to argue.
So, nothing?
Proving my point, John
Yes, there’s interstate compacts starting to form around this sort of thing. They’ve been in the works for a while now.
We need hospitals, roads and schools now, not in a perfect-world future that will never come.
Hospitals are now used for organ harvesting, eugenical screening and killing babies. Schools are now used for indoctrination and learned helplessness. Hospitals and schools existed and were more functional before they were government-funded.
Fake news
A society without taxes is not a society I want to live in. What, I have to build my own roads? Or are they all going to be for-profit toll roads? Fuck that noise. I want a government whose job is to make a society I want to live in. We don't have that government, but once we do I will happily pay taxes to that government.
Agreed. So we need a decent government before we pay taxes.
I'm up for a tax strike if it's sufficiently organized. We aren't going to accomplish shit going up against this system on our own.
Yes an organized strike would be good, and even an unorganized mass strike would do. Without a mass strike we can still be effective however by opting out of the system as much as possible, minimizing taxes and forming parallel societies.
If people want the benefits of society, they need to be paid for.
Life Pro-Tip: You definitely want the benefits of a functioning society.
The alternative is nasty, brutish, and short as a wiser person than us once said.
A functioning society needs a functioning government. A functioning government based on consent of the governed is a precondition of taxes being justified. Otherwise tax is theft.
I'm assuming the individual gives the consent. So what happens if you don't consent?
What happens if you don't consent is you get locked up. Which means you don't live in a free country founded on consent of the governed.
You do realize I was asking about your "functioning government"? What happens if you decide to no longer consent?
For a government to operate on consent of the governed they must have a fairly easy way to break off from that government. For example, they could allow anyone who purchases land on the border to secede and form their own country over the land that they own. And collectively there should be ways for towns or the whole country to vote and throw off their governments and institute new ones, like the Declaration of Independence says.
This is exactly what they want. If no one pays taxes and we all get that back into our paychecks, the price of goods goes up by the same amount or more. The taxes are still paid, they just go straight to the shareholders instead of through the government. These billionaires don't pay their fair share now but they would love to pay nothing at all. 30% inflation doesn't affect them but it does make them richer. This is why they're floating the idea of zero income tax.
They ain't scared enough
When they get really scared, they'll lash out harshly in an attempt to scare us back into compliance. Rather than back down, that's our cue to finish it, once and for all. None of this namby-pamby dragging it out for years. Decisive action is called for at that point, a lá Francais.
Every third Futurism headline because it gets clicks: "The AI industry is literally shitting its pants and collapsing; the enemy is simultaneously strong and weak. Sam Altman is actually having a panic attack right now."
It feels like this and some low-quality pop science reporting is all this content mill exists to do at this point.
Yes the headline is definitely misleading clickbait, but the article makes a point
probably slightly disappointed at most
Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos — whose net worth would take the average US worker 3.8 million years to earn on their own
Good way to put it into perspective
this news comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfortable
or
Personally I'm more of a classicalist, let's swap the guillotine for pouring gold down their gullets.
Yes I know that story is apocryphal and what really happened is that the person's fucked around with the severed head of Crassus but it's still solid imagery.
the weight of a golden crown is heavy.
Me personally, I always preferred 'Eat the rich!'
Good. Remember, people having worker's rights and livable wages and a clean environment is a compromise. Eating the rich is what happens when you keep trying to make that compromise go away due to greed.
They need to understand that they keep their fortunes and their lives, at the pleasure of the people.
but that doesn't mean it's all in good faith.
It's never in good faith, they're billionaires.
You don't become a billionaire by being honest and true.
They haven’t been given enough reason to be scared yet.
PULL THE PLUG
Not scared enough
These assholes aren't scared enough because they are still trying to build data centers all over the goddamn place, but it's just getting started, keep up the good work.
Hype Train choo choo... Sometimes I think this is all BS... Like traderturds are like "oh I could have a super power if I invest in this stock"... It is like they don't want you to forget about AI.... Chooo choooo. The billionares should be worried especilly when the start fucking with our food supply. Thats when we will see change.
The angry mob thing is so real. Treating AI as some nebulous thing that exists in cyberspace somehow devoid of anything real isn't how anything works. Data centers can burn. Sugar can be poured in your concrete, your shit can be smashed and if people get angry enough they will not stop at smashing only your shit.
no, they are not, not until we start burning down all thier shit
Good!
we will not be intimidated by Big Brother. Viva la revolucion