> If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation. There's no need for it, technology already is good

> If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation. There's no need for it, technology already is good enough. https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-free-simple-hr-block-intuit-lobbying-against-it https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre... There's no technology-in-general that "the Luddites" fight againtst, nor are there Luddites-in-general. It's risk-benefit calculation in every case, with different parties and different interests. You don't need luck to profit off lobbying against the development of your undoers, this is the norm, not the exception. > Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies. What is an "efficient technology" and what is an "unapproved and criminal enterprise" can be decided by lobbying. Luddite is the one who loses, because he gets labeled Luddite by the victor; the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.