Hmm. Looks like that was in Texas too. https://truthout.org/articles/a-city-in-texas-just-put-10000-bounties-on-trans-people-using-the-bathroom/, and they’re going to pass quite a few more bounty laws yhis year: https://prismreports.org/2025/01/08/bounty-laws-texas-trans-rights-abortion/

Dunno, they’d probably have a hard time suing European instances, but they can’t outright block, as that would be unconstitutional. U.S. states have recently been using lawsuits to get around constitutionality. I.e. Texas also has a “bounty” law, where if you know a woman went out of state to get an abortion, you can report it, and the state will sue them and give you $10,000. I think another state has a similar law for if you see a trans person using a restroom that doesn’t match the genitalia they were born with.

With the current laws on the books, Texas could probably sue Lemmy instances because they contain pornographic content and they don’t verify users’ identity.

how are you going to set your hourly wage?

As much as the market will bear, which is what my work is worth according to market principles. What’s just needed to expand operations or whatever only plays the role of setting a minimum price. You seem to keep arguing that people and businesses only charge what’s needed and no more; and very few people or businesses do that (those working for passion, like academic scientists and non-profits).

Einstein may explain it better than me:

The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

I’ve known and know business people as well (not extremely wealthy; most have probably < $10M net worth). I don’t think I’ve ever met one that wasn’t trying to make the most money possible (for the businesses they had equity in, and for themselves). They certainly think of themselves as good people, and are interpersonally decent people, but the ideologies they adopt allow them to justify anti-social actions. They brag about being able to secure low-wage labor (third-world workers, unpaid internships, etc), and employing anti-consumer and predatory practices in their products. Anytime they do good, they either have ulterior motives, or it’s just nepotism. Every social interaction they have seems to have a transactional sub-text.

I reject this notion that all businesses exist to exploit workers.

Profit is literally the surplus value of the worker’s labor. The workers generate it, and the business appropriates it in whatever way the business owners see fit. This is exploitative, anti-democratic, and damaging to society, imo. Eventually, the owners may take a big payout by selling the company (whose value was generated by the workers), and possibly throw some crumbs to the workers, who may get laid off soon after.

it’s striking how little government knows who is in need of what.

Many of the problems with government is it’s beholden to the wealthy, imo. In regards to the U.S., I think the next administration will preside over an almost complete capture of government by oligarchs. I think we will become like Russia or East Asian oligarchies. I’m an anarcho-leaning leftist, so I don’t think large powerful governments are the answer either.

This is what we should be having more conversations about. How is it that we have this powerful tool to speak our minds yet so many people are being ignored? Or voting against their own interests.

Most media is controlled by the wealthy/corporations, who either purposely use it to advance their own interests (divide the working class, selective reporting, purposely biased algos, and spinning narratives), or are just damaging as a side-effect of pursuing profits. Honestly, at this point in time, I think most of it is purposeful, and not a side-effect. In “new media” the far-right seems to have an awful lot of money, to the point they’re doing theatrical releases of movies. It’s already came out that some far-right “new media” was directly funded by Russia (an oligarchal nation with ties to the wanna-be oligarchs of the upcoming administration).

Sounds like you’re making e/acc-like (effective altruism) arguments. Which basically is to make as much money as possible to use that money for positive change. It’s very flawed, because 1) to make as much money as possible, you need to exploit workers, customers, or investors, and 2) it’s authoritarian in nature. The wealthy are extremely out of touch with reality, and their priorities and ideal of what “positive change” is generally don’t align with the populace, or what’s needed most.

I don’t think murdering CEOs is the answer, but I do hope the working class becomes more class conscious; the wealthy class sure is, and has never stopped waging class war.