Scenario: An autonomous EV is traveling at 70 mph in a center lane of a freeway. Suddenly, a car is released into the lane from a tow truck, making a collision inevitable. There is no time to stop. The only alternatives are to swerve into the adjacent lanes:

• Option 1 (Straight): Collide with the object (Potential severe harm to 2 EV occupants).
• Option 2 (Left Swerve): SUV with a family of 4 (Potential severe harm to 4 occupants).
• Option 3 (Right Swerve): Motorcyclist (High likelihood of fatality for 1 occupant).

Since there is no clear legal consensus, any deliberate action to harm a third party (Options 2 or 3) would expose the manufacturer and programmer to immediate criminal negligence or manslaughter charges. Conversely, failure to implement harm-minimization (Option 1) could invite massive civil liability for not utilizing known technology to save the occupants.

The programmer, operating in the current U.S. regulatory vacuum concerning explicit "trolley problem" rules, faces a practical and legal impossibility.

Introduction: The Rhetoric of Wealth Confiscation

The political discourse surrounding economic inequality often centers on proposals to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, sometimes escalating to calls for the complete confiscation of billionaire assets—a position frequently associated with the political far-left. The core argument is that the concentrated wealth of a few individuals is morally indefensible and should be leveraged to resolve national financial crises, such as the persistent federal budget deficit. Proponents often suggest that the multi-trillion-dollar fortunes of U.S. billionaires represent a vast, untapped resource that could eliminate debt, fund expansive new social programs, or, at the very least, immediately stabilize the federal budget.

This podcast analyzes this rhetorical proposition by comparing the total private wealth held by U.S. billionaires against the colossal, recurring annual spending of the U.S. Federal Government, determining the actual, measurable fiscal impact of such a one-time wealth transfer.