One thing that’s also complicated, here, is that the intended beneficiaries of EA foundations’ giving tend to lack voting power in the foundations’ host countries: animals, the poor in other countries, and future generations. So trying to redirect resources to these groups, rather than the beneficiaries preferred by one’s national government, can also be framed as a response to the fact that (e.g.) the US government is insufficiently democratic: the US government doesn’t have any formal mechanisms for representing the interests of most of the groups that have a stake in its decisions.
I don’t disagree, but I think the discussion is not as simple. When it comes to “legitimate” EA money, I think it would be much better to have some mechanism that includes as many of the potential beneficiaries as possible, rather than one national government. I just view tax money as “not legitimate EA money” (Edit: and I see people who do want to avoid taxes, as wanting to subvert the democratic system they’re in in favor of their own decisionmaking).
I don’t disagree, but I think the discussion is not as simple. When it comes to “legitimate” EA money, I think it would be much better to have some mechanism that includes as many of the potential beneficiaries as possible, rather than one national government. I just view tax money as “not legitimate EA money” (Edit: and I see people who do want to avoid taxes, as wanting to subvert the democratic system they’re in in favor of their own decisionmaking).