3 ms·

Consent matters. There is no worse tyranny than to force someone to pay for something they do not want to buy, simply because you think it would be good for th

by sneak 2y ago

Consent matters. There is no worse tyranny than to force someone to pay for something they do not want to buy, simply because you think it would be good for them. I am vehemently pro-research and pro-education, but these tax-funded programs are not it. There must be some meaningful connection to the delivery of value, otherwise this stuff is just public-private wealth transfer. This seems obvious to me. Why should this research be subsidized? Why should government subsidies exist in general? This isn’t crazy stuff. We would like a smaller federal government. Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling when an elected official does the things people voted for them to do? (Note: I did not vote for this administration, but I am happy about some of the policy decisions that are being made (and unhappy about others).)

arrobbiato 2y ago
If you require taxpayers to consent to every single line item, voting is going to become rather cumbersome.
- sneak 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - digitaltrees 2y ago
    You can migrate and renounce citizenship. Staying and benefiting from the spending is tacit consent no?
    - sneak 2y ago
      There is no such thing as tacit consent.
      - acdha 2y ago
        The fact that there’s a term for it which we all know suggests otherwise. It’s literally in textbooks, too, so you’d have a better argument if you explained your conceptual disagreement rather than trying to pretend the concept doesn’t exist.
  - rights_reminder 2y ago
    I will bring this up every time someone mentions this, but your money is not being taken without consent. You are signing tax forms without knowing what they mean in law and voluntarily (incorrectly) giving it to them. Income taxes are excise taxes.
  - inejge 2y ago
    taken without consent; every constituent who voted for every representative who ratified the 16th amendment is now dead Isn't it nice when you get nerd sniped by complete nonsense? I wanted to see what amendments would get invalidated using the quoted line of reasoning, aside from the whole Bill of Rights. Using the date of ratification from Wikipedia and subtracting the voting age at the time gives you the absolute lower limit of the age of any voting constituent: Am Ratified VA Latest BD Age ----------------------------------- 1 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 2 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 3 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 4 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 5 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 6 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 7 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 8 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 9 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 10 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 11 02/07/1795 21 02/07/1774 251 12 06/15/1804 21 06/15/1783 241 13 12/06/1865 21 12/06/1844 180 14 07/09/1868 21 07/09/1847 177 15 02/03/1870 21 02/03/1849 176 16 02/03/1913 21 02/03/1892 133 17 04/08/1913 21 04/08/1892 132 18 01/16/1919 21 01/16/1898 127 19 08/18/1920 21 08/18/1899 125 20 01/23/1933 21 01/23/1912 113 21 12/05/1933 21 12/05/1912 112 22 02/27/1951 21 02/27/1930 95 23 03/29/1961 21 03/29/1940 84 24 01/23/1964 21 01/23/1943 82 25 02/10/1967 21 02/10/1946 79 26 07/01/1971 21 07/01/1950 74 27 05/07/1992 18 05/07/1974 50 Using the SSA cutoff date of 115 years, we see that the 20th and the 21st are a bit iffy, which isn't so bad because the 21st is the repeal of the 18th, and the 20th is a bit technical, but: women's suffrage is kaput! Slavery is OK again! Senators are to be appointed! Etc. At least term limits still apply, whew.
sunshowers 2y ago
Government subsidies should exist in general because fundamentally, humans are very bad at making long-term decisions. Institutions, taxes and transfers are how we make sure that society is oriented away from people's short-term preferences and towards long-term benefit to all.
- sneak 2y ago
  If people are very bad at making long term decisions, then how would a government (made of people) somehow mitigate this? Governments also have demonstrated their fundamental inability to outperform in making long-term decisions. “People are bad, therefore let’s throw organizations of even more people at the problem” doesn’t even pass the laugh test. In fact, not only does this “solution” not solve the problem, it creates a whole host of new ones: corruption, graft, human rights abuses, and perpetuation of the status quo due to codification.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    Most people are bad at making long-term decisions. Some are not. Biases can be overcome with sustained training and dedication. Using taxes to fund basic research is one of many ways our institutions have a countervailing effect towards long-term thinking. In fact we should be taxing much more and doing much, much more of it. This is explicitly anti-majoritarian, yes. Corruption is indeed a potential issue, and we should focus on ways to e.g. root out peer review rings. But the numbers we're talking about are tiny.
    - sneak 2y ago
      What you are describing is by definition an oligarchy.
dsr_ 2y ago
You don't believe that, or you would have moved to be out from under this ultimate tyranny. Somalia, perhaps. Your argument is the classic Randist Libertarian one: "There is no such thing as society, everything I did I earned myself with no reference to anyone." It is, of course, complete and utter garbage. Government spending is the only known way of constructing projects that are not attractive money-makers: rural electrification, communications systems, roads, water treatment, education. In order to keep currency flowing, governments remove it from circulation via taxation.
- sneak 2y ago
  This violates consent, though. Consent matters, regardless of how much handwaving occurs after people choose to violate it. The other such places you describe also violate consent. Same criminal acts: coercion by violence. I do indeed believe in the things I have said, and I have indeed emigrated from the United States for many such reasons, principally among them my objection to being forced to fund neverending war. Unfortunately the US Government still taxes me remotely.
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    You can renounce your US citizenship and thus avoid the burden of US taxation.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Yes, please do this GP. Renounce your citizenship and be free of the big bad taxes. Most of us prefer infrastructure and long term public research.
  - condorwhilhem 2y ago
    Eh, consent is a little nebulous in this context. Sure in interpersonal relationships, consent is important. But on a societal scale there are plenty of ways in which consent is violated. I don't consent to breathing toxic fumes from other people's cars. Should we make cars illegal? I don't consent to having to wear clothes all the time, is it unethical that I have to wear clothes? Also, the money they are taking is produced by and guaranteed by the US government. Is it really "your" money? Without the US government that money is worthless.
UncleMeat 2y ago
I can think of a large number of vastly worse tyrannies. The outcome of this is not going to be a smaller government that achieves 80% of its previous goals with 70% of the spending. The outcome of this is going to be massively chaotic organizations and less efficiency because of the huge fucking wrecking balls slammed into everything by people that have publicly spoken about their goal to destroy the post-new-deal society and replace it with CEO-kings running fiefdoms.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Heck, I'm living in a vastly worse tyranny. Not like Trump will cut my taxes. I'm not even a millionaire.
acdha 2y ago
Do think that it’s _not_ consent when people all over the country spend decades voting for representatives who create and maintain research programs? Unlike this, those were very deliberate proposals with extensive public debate. Do you think there was consent to have a guy who wasn’t on the ballot do things which the guy who was on the ballot said he wouldn’t do, with zero involvement or consent from the people’s representatives?
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
[flagged]
- edward28 2y ago
  Is this the same Kara as Kara Sternquist the convicted felon charged with "possession of fraudulent badges and credentials for federal agencies" and when their house was searched multiple firearms were found including two fully automatic rifles? [0][1] [0] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-sternquist https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-sternquist [1] https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2023/01/mdc-brooklyn-jail-health-care/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2023/01/mdc-bro...
8note 2y ago
but the spending was all set by democratic process where citizen's representatives set the spending in their constituents interests. instead, now that value is being taken away from me without consent, and im goinf to be forced to spend more somewhere else in my life to make up for it, without the actual consent of it going through votes and discussion in congress
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
> Why should government subsidies exist in general? Bro... I think you missed the civics class where they explain how economies/governments work. tl;dr the magical free market isn't, the world is complicated, and governments are supposed to help their people, which includes providing things, like money, to do things, like advance the state of the civilization, its people, its businesses, products, services, technologies, defenses, education, health, food, energy, etc etc etc etc etc > Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling when an elected official does the things people voted for them to do? Two words: National Socialism. Sometimes the people are morons, and the leaders psychopaths.
digitaltrees 2y ago
Congress passed laws allocating the spending. That by definition is consent.
- sneak 2y ago
  They did this without my involvement. Furthermore, the amendment that they claim permits them to steal your money was ratified by representatives who were elected by no people alive today. The current population had no say whatsoever in these laws. They were born into it like being born into slavery. There is no “unsubscribe”.
  - digitaltrees 2y ago
    You want all laws to be renewed each generation? Fine, how do you set the renewal date? What about the transition from one law to another? My point is there will always be someone that is subject to a law that was passed prior to them being of the age of consent for a particular law. No serious political theory defines the legitimacy of a law by 100% explicit consent by the governed. Instead the consent given is a broad transfer of the right to govern generally. That’s all that is necessary. I don’t need to consent to everything the police do to protect public safety if I have consented to their general mission.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Gov subsidies of research is one of the smartest public investments because it drives growth in new areas, ultimately opening up new companies/jobs, and allowing the country to keep pace with, or lead, competitors who will otherwise capture that market. Or the research improves medical care which improves the quality of life of citizens. If you really want to reduce government subsidies, start with the defense industry, which is fully funded by your tax dollars. And it really accomplishes very little for the country, other than the scientific research it funds (which is actually substantial and which often results in breakthroughs with non-military applications).

by sneak 2y ago

arrobbiato 2y ago

If you require taxpayers to consent to every single line item, voting is going to become rather cumbersome.

sneak 2y ago
[flagged]
- digitaltrees 2y ago
  You can migrate and renounce citizenship. Staying and benefiting from the spending is tacit consent no?
  - sneak 2y ago
    There is no such thing as tacit consent.
    - acdha 2y ago
      The fact that there’s a term for it which we all know suggests otherwise. It’s literally in textbooks, too, so you’d have a better argument if you explained your conceptual disagreement rather than trying to pretend the concept doesn’t exist.
- rights_reminder 2y ago
  I will bring this up every time someone mentions this, but your money is not being taken without consent. You are signing tax forms without knowing what they mean in law and voluntarily (incorrectly) giving it to them. Income taxes are excise taxes.
- inejge 2y ago
  taken without consent; every constituent who voted for every representative who ratified the 16th amendment is now dead Isn't it nice when you get nerd sniped by complete nonsense? I wanted to see what amendments would get invalidated using the quoted line of reasoning, aside from the whole Bill of Rights. Using the date of ratification from Wikipedia and subtracting the voting age at the time gives you the absolute lower limit of the age of any voting constituent: Am Ratified VA Latest BD Age ----------------------------------- 1 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 2 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 3 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 4 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 5 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 6 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 7 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 8 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 9 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 10 12/15/1791 21 12/15/1770 254 11 02/07/1795 21 02/07/1774 251 12 06/15/1804 21 06/15/1783 241 13 12/06/1865 21 12/06/1844 180 14 07/09/1868 21 07/09/1847 177 15 02/03/1870 21 02/03/1849 176 16 02/03/1913 21 02/03/1892 133 17 04/08/1913 21 04/08/1892 132 18 01/16/1919 21 01/16/1898 127 19 08/18/1920 21 08/18/1899 125 20 01/23/1933 21 01/23/1912 113 21 12/05/1933 21 12/05/1912 112 22 02/27/1951 21 02/27/1930 95 23 03/29/1961 21 03/29/1940 84 24 01/23/1964 21 01/23/1943 82 25 02/10/1967 21 02/10/1946 79 26 07/01/1971 21 07/01/1950 74 27 05/07/1992 18 05/07/1974 50 Using the SSA cutoff date of 115 years, we see that the 20th and the 21st are a bit iffy, which isn't so bad because the 21st is the repeal of the 18th, and the 20th is a bit technical, but: women's suffrage is kaput! Slavery is OK again! Senators are to be appointed! Etc. At least term limits still apply, whew.

sunshowers 2y ago

Government subsidies should exist in general because fundamentally, humans are very bad at making long-term decisions. Institutions, taxes and transfers are how we make sure that society is oriented away from people's short-term preferences and towards long-term benefit to all.

sneak 2y ago
If people are very bad at making long term decisions, then how would a government (made of people) somehow mitigate this? Governments also have demonstrated their fundamental inability to outperform in making long-term decisions. “People are bad, therefore let’s throw organizations of even more people at the problem” doesn’t even pass the laugh test. In fact, not only does this “solution” not solve the problem, it creates a whole host of new ones: corruption, graft, human rights abuses, and perpetuation of the status quo due to codification.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Most people are bad at making long-term decisions. Some are not. Biases can be overcome with sustained training and dedication. Using taxes to fund basic research is one of many ways our institutions have a countervailing effect towards long-term thinking. In fact we should be taxing much more and doing much, much more of it. This is explicitly anti-majoritarian, yes. Corruption is indeed a potential issue, and we should focus on ways to e.g. root out peer review rings. But the numbers we're talking about are tiny.
  - sneak 2y ago
    What you are describing is by definition an oligarchy.

dsr_ 2y ago

You don't believe that, or you would have moved to be out from under this ultimate tyranny. Somalia, perhaps. Your argument is the classic Randist Libertarian one: "There is no such thing as society, everything I did I earned myself with no reference to anyone." It is, of course, complete and utter garbage. Government spending is the only known way of constructing projects that are not attractive money-makers: rural electrification, communications systems, roads, water treatment, education. In order to keep currency flowing, governments remove it from circulation via taxation.

sneak 2y ago
This violates consent, though. Consent matters, regardless of how much handwaving occurs after people choose to violate it. The other such places you describe also violate consent. Same criminal acts: coercion by violence. I do indeed believe in the things I have said, and I have indeed emigrated from the United States for many such reasons, principally among them my objection to being forced to fund neverending war. Unfortunately the US Government still taxes me remotely.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  You can renounce your US citizenship and thus avoid the burden of US taxation.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Yes, please do this GP. Renounce your citizenship and be free of the big bad taxes. Most of us prefer infrastructure and long term public research.
- condorwhilhem 2y ago
  Eh, consent is a little nebulous in this context. Sure in interpersonal relationships, consent is important. But on a societal scale there are plenty of ways in which consent is violated. I don't consent to breathing toxic fumes from other people's cars. Should we make cars illegal? I don't consent to having to wear clothes all the time, is it unethical that I have to wear clothes? Also, the money they are taking is produced by and guaranteed by the US government. Is it really "your" money? Without the US government that money is worthless.

UncleMeat 2y ago

I can think of a large number of vastly worse tyrannies. The outcome of this is not going to be a smaller government that achieves 80% of its previous goals with 70% of the spending. The outcome of this is going to be massively chaotic organizations and less efficiency because of the huge fucking wrecking balls slammed into everything by people that have publicly spoken about their goal to destroy the post-new-deal society and replace it with CEO-kings running fiefdoms.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Heck, I'm living in a vastly worse tyranny. Not like Trump will cut my taxes. I'm not even a millionaire.

acdha 2y ago

Do think that it’s _not_ consent when people all over the country spend decades voting for representatives who create and maintain research programs? Unlike this, those were very deliberate proposals with extensive public debate. Do you think there was consent to have a guy who wasn’t on the ballot do things which the guy who was on the ballot said he wouldn’t do, with zero involvement or consent from the people’s representatives?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

[flagged]

edward28 2y ago
Is this the same Kara as Kara Sternquist the convicted felon charged with "possession of fraudulent badges and credentials for federal agencies" and when their house was searched multiple firearms were found including two fully automatic rifles? [0][1] [0] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-sternquist https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-sternquist [1] https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2023/01/mdc-brooklyn-jail-health-care/ https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2023/01/mdc-bro...

8note 2y ago

but the spending was all set by democratic process where citizen's representatives set the spending in their constituents interests. instead, now that value is being taken away from me without consent, and im goinf to be forced to spend more somewhere else in my life to make up for it, without the actual consent of it going through votes and discussion in congress

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

> Why should government subsidies exist in general? Bro... I think you missed the civics class where they explain how economies/governments work. tl;dr the magical free market isn't, the world is complicated, and governments are supposed to help their people, which includes providing things, like money, to do things, like advance the state of the civilization, its people, its businesses, products, services, technologies, defenses, education, health, food, energy, etc etc etc etc etc > Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling when an elected official does the things people voted for them to do? Two words: National Socialism. Sometimes the people are morons, and the leaders psychopaths.

digitaltrees 2y ago

Congress passed laws allocating the spending. That by definition is consent.

sneak 2y ago
They did this without my involvement. Furthermore, the amendment that they claim permits them to steal your money was ratified by representatives who were elected by no people alive today. The current population had no say whatsoever in these laws. They were born into it like being born into slavery. There is no “unsubscribe”.
- digitaltrees 2y ago
  You want all laws to be renewed each generation? Fine, how do you set the renewal date? What about the transition from one law to another? My point is there will always be someone that is subject to a law that was passed prior to them being of the age of consent for a particular law. No serious political theory defines the legitimacy of a law by 100% explicit consent by the governed. Instead the consent given is a broad transfer of the right to govern generally. That’s all that is necessary. I don’t need to consent to everything the police do to protect public safety if I have consented to their general mission.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Gov subsidies of research is one of the smartest public investments because it drives growth in new areas, ultimately opening up new companies/jobs, and allowing the country to keep pace with, or lead, competitors who will otherwise capture that market. Or the research improves medical care which improves the quality of life of citizens. If you really want to reduce government subsidies, start with the defense industry, which is fully funded by your tax dollars. And it really accomplishes very little for the country, other than the scientific research it funds (which is actually substantial and which often results in breakthroughs with non-military applications).