The OP said:

Pretty much every company I’ve been in or know of values a vertical trajectory instead of a horizontal one for its employees i.e becoming a manager nearly always means a faster salary progression than becoming an expert in one or multiple fields.

Why is expertise valued less?

I simply explained what someone might have meant regarding seizing the means of production being a potential solution to expertise being valued less than being manager.

You still need leadership in any system.

Eve your argument “seize the means of production” only happens with leadership.

I didn’t say we don’t need leaders. An owner or a manager may be in charge but that doesn’t make them a leader.

The structure and values of the underlying society revolve around individuals amassing power and wealth for their own benefit rather than any kind of collective good. Often the boss, the owner, the one in charge leans on their wealth and power. They were born with resources or hoarded them and feel that the most valuable contribution anyone could make is risking their own wealth (investing). As such, they themselves deserve most of the control of the organization (company) and deserve to be rewarded with most of the fruits of their worker’s labor. They control the means of production.

If you have good social skills and exude confidence - this comforts the boss. Now the boss likes you and you get promoted and more money. If you are capable of doing great work but don’t know how to kiss the boss’s ass or don’t make the boss believe you know what you are doing - you aren’t as obviously valuable to the boss because the boss doesn’t understand all that technical stuff. Toss in some Dunning-Kruger for good measure too.

Get rid of the boss and decide how to do things democratically among your peers? Now you’ve seized the means of production.

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.

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.”

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.

My department has a service that is abbreviated to PM. Since our organization uses Google for mail, I often have to battle with automagic corrections to every use of PM as a noun to “the PM”.

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.

¿Por qué no los dos? You can excite the fascist libertarians and still get the attention of the people who blow their load the moment someone adds “AI” to a product.

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.

Data centers in space, data centers on ships… it’s likely just an attempt to avoid laws and oversight.

One of my coworkers in another department started doing this. I asked their department a question in slack because that department is in charge of the system I had a question about. I was basically like “Hey, we have a user that wants to do X. Is that something that would work for you guys?” One guy I know there sent me a direct message with the response of a Gemini chat about whether or not the system could do X, and how to set it up to do X, with no relevant context because I didn’t give them any yet. I glanced through it and it was apparent that the context was quite relevant to the situation.

I didn’t ask if X was possible and I don’t have the access to set it up anyway. I just wanted to make sure it wouldn’t conflict with their fucking priorities or run counter to their policies. It also felt very “let me Google that for you”, except Gemini and the response is significantly less helpful.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I drive by a school with those signs on my way to work. I slow down because, obviously, kids. The cars behind me get enraged that I’m not going 40 and then they pull into the school and drop off their kids.

Do your police exist to harvest revenue from the population in order to support their budgets, or do you have a logical, reasonable method of funding law enforcement?

Going by the official/intended definition of enshittification, it’s not “how shitty is the product” for consumers, that’s just a part of it. It’s a whole process:

1. Capture consumer clients by offering great service to users at low cost or free
2. Capture business client market by abusing captured users in favor of business clients
3. Fuck over captured business clients and consumer users for maximum profit/power.

Seeing as how the governments would qualify as a type of business client… the process is likely to, in the end, involve the government getting fucked.

The actions of the state of Israel definitely work, intentionally or unintentionally, to increase antisemitism across the globe. Equating criticism of Isreal, which is actively committing Genocide, among other illegal atrocities in the region, with antisemitism is absurd. Using that logic to shield their actions from criticism is, frankly, a crime against Jewish people everywhere as it reduces the seriousness and sincerity of any legitimate claims of actual antisemitism.

However, I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to my comment. Ashkenazi is an ancestry - not a state, not a religion, not a tradition. It conveys no information beyond who your parents are and who their parents were and where they all came from. Discrimination based on such things is just racism.