You know, when I hear people talking about "intersectionalism" or "triggers" or some other crazy shit, I usually question their sanity. I mean, are things really still that bad? In my life, it seems that the causes which so many people fight for have already been won. It's fucking 2016, right?
But then I see comments like this, and it becomes evident that while the years go sailing by, some people have dropped anchor in a time before my birth. And I've seen Pete Seeger perform live.
Iff the jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, then absolutely sequitur.
Yes, agreed. But since it's not proven that jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, it's non sequitur.
Perhaps jobless claims went down because people have been unemployed for longer than the unemployment benefit duration.
The stated conclusion does not follow from the stated premises. The implied premises (that is, the premises that would need to be stated for the conclusion to follow logically from them) are not stated, likely because stating them explicitly would highlight how likely they are to be false.
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter.
Obstacles are way too high. Current calculation requires 60 Giga Watt laser beam. Largest nuclear plant in USA, Palo Verde, Arizona, has approx 1.25 Giga Watt power.
60GW for 2 hours, or one launch every 2 days, powered by a single power plant. It's not clear that the mission requires more frequent launches than that, so there's no basis to say "way too high" here.
More: according to the plan, installations that generate power of 50 nuclear plants would need to be sent to space, for lasers are supposed to be above the atmosphere.
Actually, according to the plan, the lasers will be sited on the Earth's surface. They will require a mile-wide adaptive optics array to compensate for atmospheric distortion. Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the plan you're citing.
Finally, the power of 50 nuclear plants would be concentrated into the area more or less equal to handkerchief. I think that handkerchief will evaporate, maybe it will not. However there might be some interference at the interstellar probe. Technical difficulties are insurmountable so far.
While a "handkerchief" would likely "evaporate" (become ionized, more realistically), I believe this mission actually plans to use solar sails. Solar sails are defined by having insufficient absorption to undergo catastrophic heating in the course of ordinary use. Consequently, I think the technical difficulties are a lot less technically difficult than your hyperbole would otherwise suggest.
Anyway, the last time I have checked approximately 50% of world's population did not have proper sewer, and approximately 15% do not have running water and electricity. Just a small fraction of interstellar travel project would bring these necessities to the fellow human beings. I would say, that we should build few nuclear power plants here on earth first.
If you believe that "a small fraction" of $10B would provide water, sanitation, and electrical services to every last person on Earth, you're mistaken.
I think that we will need 100 years to send a interstellar probe.
So, after all that, you think their estimate of 40 years isn't that far off?
You write some terrible stuff on occasion, but this here is hilarious.
You were offered an unambiguous explanation for why your opinion is based on false premises.
Your response alleges ad hominem, despite GP's argument not hinging on your apparent ignorance of the subject matter. That's not how ad hominem works. A clear argument against your claims was offered in the first two sentences of GP's post, and the subsequent two sentences were offered more as commentary regarding your ignorance. Their omission would not have any impact on the validity of the argument against your claims.
As to it being unjustified to group communism and socialism together... Show why "my" association of the two that I made in the context I made them was in error.
GP stated that both Tzarist Russia and Soviet Russia were autocratic totalitarian regimes, not communist or socialist. This is consistent with the dictionary definitions of these words, and his claim is factually correct. That's why this is a valid rebuttal of your argument. Though GP did go on to then put forth a compelling argument suggesting that you are indeed rather ignorant of the subject, his rebuttal of your claim does not hinge upon this. In other words, while it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, that's not what makes you wrong. Your claims are wrong independently of your ignorance. Hopefully that clears up this confusion.
Of course, after whining on and on about ad hominem attacks (and entirely ignoring the actual argument against your claim), you go on to say GP is "pathetic". Good luck with the moderators.
All that research done by Pratt and Whitney... Boeing... Lockheed Martin...
Terrible examples. None of these companies invest significantly in pure research.
If socialism were superior the Russians would have won the Cold War.
Non sequitur, affirming the consequent.
They didn't because its inferior.
Repeating that same unsupported assertion.
Stop for a moment and look at all your dumb arguments are apply them to the soviets. IF you were right, they should have been dramatically more successful. Instead they were dramatically less successful.
I don't think anyone's arguing that a corrupt dictatorship leads to optimal outcomes. You seem to be falsely drawing an equivalence between despotism and socialism.
That 20th century cage match apparently isn't taught in schools these days. Socialism lost on everything but politics. And the political argument is sustained largely by ignorance and sophistry. Any time empiricism becomes relevant... it gets its head twisted off and spiked into the ground like a tent pole.
Hi, I'm a political refugee from a Soviet satellite state. I really appreciate the history lesson, grounded in your comprehensive understanding of these matters, sir. With insights like these, it's apparent that you're an accomplished academic in this discipline, as your intimate knowledge of life behind the Iron Curtain dwarfs even my own.
Or you're just spewing bullshit. Actually, yea, I think that's it. Carry on with your Red Scare, though.
This stuff is why I don't understand people that consistently blame government for cost overruns, but never consider that corporations game the system to maximize their profits.
Theory 3a: Climate change is entirely, primarily, or even merely majority (>50.1%) caused by human activity. If true then we should prioritize the removal of carbon emissions wherever possible. The problem is that even without entrenched financial interests like "big oil", there's still the fact that getting rid of carbon emissions is expensive and time consuming. There's removing/minimizing emissions by moving away from coal and other combustion based electricity generation, improving efficiency of how we use energy, replacing combustion engines with electric wherever possible (road vehicles, aircraft, ships), and reducing emissions in manufacturing. All of this is expensive, and gets even more expensive the faster we try to do it, however, the expense is worth it if this theory is correct.
Theory 3b: Human activity has little to no impact on climate change. If this is true then shifting our society away from energy production that has carbon emissions will do little good in combating climate change, and would be a massive distraction/diversion of resources, money, time, and research away from finding a solution (assuming one exists). Hypothetically if this theory is the correct one then an increase in global carbon emissions in the name of getting to a solution faster would be the correct choice (i have no clue how that would work, maybe constructing a weather control device that requires power orders of magnitude greater than what we have now?).
So, you're saying that the disagreement is over the particular mechanism with which we gain control over the global climate? That would be easier to swallow if the 'Theory 3b' people had a suggestion more comprehensive than "i have no clue how that would work, maybe constructing a weather control device that requires power orders of magnitude greater than what we have now?"
The AGW-denying side has not yet proposed a mechanism by which to stop non-anthropogenic global warming. Furthermore, they haven't even indicated a willingness to do so. If they were proposing geoengineering techniques unrelated to managing atmospheric CO2, this would be a much more believable claim, but they're not. The argument, as I've heard it, runs along the lines of "it's not our fault, so there's no need to do anything about it".
So... I am a believer in global climate change. Whether that climate is being significantly effected [sic] by human activity is something I am skeptical about.
You sound like a reasonable, level-headed person. So, based on what you've said, I have only a single question to ask:
Why does it matter if climate is being significantly affected by human activity or not?
From where I sit, it seems that a warming climate, rising sea levels, and acidification of the oceans would impose significant costs on human civilization. Whether these things are being caused by human activity or not, it seems worthwhile to engage in efforts to stop and undo these changes to the climate. Consequently, I am unable to see the relevance of the distinction you draw between natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change.
Why do you keep referring to the person you're replying to by name? Isn't the intended recipient of your message clearly implied by slashdot's comment threading mechanism?
When I sold my business, I did donate to the government. Yes, donate. I gave the US Government money, my money, and without force. I specifically was able to donate to NASA. In case your'e curious, you can donate to NASA but you can't earmark the donation for a project. Donations must go to the general operations fund. I was wanting to earmark my donations for educational outreach programs but that's impossible.
How? I half-assedly looked into this not long ago and was unable to find any information that would suggest this is possible. Is there a particular threshold that must be met? (I'm not wealthy)
It's the nature of socialist "justice" whiners to try & suppress anything that challenges their worldview.
As can be verified by my posting history, I'm both a socialist and strongly opposed to the "social justice warrior" phenomenon. Please do not conflate two entirely unrelated issues.
If you're indeed referring to socialists who you feel are whiners, and not social justice warriors, including the word "justice" only confuses the subject.
The word "militia" states that you are expected to fight on it's own does it not?
I don't believe so, no. I read through the cited statute several times now, and couldn't find such an expectation codified in law. If you believe that the word 'militia' carries a legal meaning beyond its legal definition, I believe the burden is on your to demonstrate your rationale. Furthermore, I'd caution that while your viewpoint sure seems reasonable, it is in direct contradiction to the law as I've cited it. If we're going to have a discussion about the law, the law itself should trump any "reasonable viewpoint". If you prefer to have a discussion about subjective opinions, and not the law, we can do that too. However, that was not my original aim.
This whole weasel bullshit of pretending to be a soldier to justify military weapons (instead of what you can have as a useful tool for whatever task you need it for) and then running in horror from any responsibility to serve really makes me laugh a great deal at the 2nd amendment weenies that don't even know how to store a gun safely.
Your bias is showing, and bias rarely helps one reach objectively correct conclusions. I'm glad you find this subject amusing, but it's not clear how this proclamation is intended to contribute to the discussion. In case you're still in search of more humor, I refer you to the writings and rulings of Justice Cooley for more information about the tasks for which tools like arms might be useful.
In case you missed it, the single link my previous post seems to answer the very question you're asking.
10 U.S. Code Section 311 says you can be (or rather, you are, or must be) a part of the militia, and it does not mention anything about being expected to fight when needed.
Beyond the Selective Service act (which does indeed impose such an expectation on members of the militia in the form of a military draft), which is limited to only a subset of the militia (more specifically, the subset which is registered to vote), I'm not aware of any statutes which would impose such an expectation.
I understand that the law may seem counterintuitive in this sense, but it's still the law. If you disagree that the referenced statute legally defines the militia, or if you disagree with my claim that there are no other statutes which impose an expectation of participation in military combat on every member of the militia, then I invite you to present your case. Otherwise, I'm not sure what basis you have for disagreeing.
Would you agree that a citation of US statute takes this well out of the realm of "andwaving and argumentative magic"? Or are you going to continue this ignorant line of reasoning into the future?
So, you disagree with my "unsupported assumption" (we call these "premises" in the context of logical argument). That's fine.
But then you go on to make a handful of your own "unsupported assumptions", like what constitutes fairness in how people split a bill at a restaurant. Okay.
Then, you've got your magnum opus:
The only way to guarantee fairness would be to come up with an arrangement that everyone involved agrees to voluntarily, but since the subject is taxation that isn't an option. Lack of voluntary consent is built in to the definition.
In practice, this means that the only practical way to guarantee fairness is anarchy, as there isn't a single issue in society with which at least one person disagrees. So, a world with no common governments is the only way to guarantee fairness? A world with no mechanisms to enforce fairness is the only one in which fairness is guaranteed? Might-makes-right is guaranteed fairness?
That said, a system where some people are forced to pay more than the value of the goods and services they receive in order that others can receive benefits they did not pay for is not a system one could reasonable expect the former group to consent to, or consider fair.
Any analysis beyond the myopic one you exhibit here would reach a different conclusion.
The definition of "dependent" is obvious. The rich are already covering most of the cost of public services for society as a whole; they could easily afford to buy the same (or better) services just for themselves, assuming they even want those services in the first place.
That's a false statement. If it was obvious, I wouldn't be asking for it to be defined. Furthermore, it is not self-evident that the rich could afford to each independently maintain their own standing army, develop their own nuclear weapons programs, comparable to that which is provided by the federal government. Additionally, the assumption that they'd want to maintain security over their wealth seems corroborated by their actions, so it's not much of an assumption to say that they do indeed want those services in the first place.
Sure, but if they aren't dependent on it then its disappearance would not hurt them
That's only true if dependence has a really weird definition. You seem to be defining "dependent" as "drawing any amount of benefit from", which I disagree with. I'm not "dependent" on the existence of Italian Futurism in sculpture, as I'm not an Italian sculptor selling my wares in the 1930s, but its disappearance would hurt me nonetheless.
quite the opposite, actually, since as it stands they are paying more than their fair share of the costs, which makes the system a net loss so far as they are concerned.
Again, the assumption that they pay more than their fair share, without either defining what would constitute "fair" or quantifying the benefits they receive from participation in society. If what you say is true, that participation in society is a net loss for the truly wealthy, then shouldn't we see some significant number of wealthy people actually choosing to leave society and relocate to places like Somalia where they wouldn't have such a "net loss" to worry about? Do you have an explanation for why the wealthy seem to prefer this "net loss" situation, if it is indeed a net loss for them?
Indeed. To begin with, you would need to define what "their share" means.
Since we tax income, the implication here was that "their share" would be a fixed proportion of income.
If the point were to distribute the burden fairly, one's fair share would be determined by how much one contributes to the cost of the system, not how much one earns.
That's not known, and it's not practically knowable.
As a rule these factors are inversely related: the more you make, the less dependent you are on government services.
In the parlance of our times, CITATION NEEDED. First, you'd need to define "dependent" here. Second, you need to realize that people contribute to the cost of the system independently of whether they depend on it.
One's share of the costs certainly does not scale linearly (or super-linearly) with increasing income.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, when I hear people talking about "intersectionalism" or "triggers" or some other crazy shit, I usually question their sanity. I mean, are things really still that bad? In my life, it seems that the causes which so many people fight for have already been won. It's fucking 2016, right?
But then I see comments like this, and it becomes evident that while the years go sailing by, some people have dropped anchor in a time before my birth. And I've seen Pete Seeger perform live.
Iff the jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, then absolutely sequitur.
Yes, agreed. But since it's not proven that jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, it's non sequitur.
Perhaps jobless claims went down because people have been unemployed for longer than the unemployment benefit duration.
The stated conclusion does not follow from the stated premises. The implied premises (that is, the premises that would need to be stated for the conclusion to follow logically from them) are not stated, likely because stating them explicitly would highlight how likely they are to be false.
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly declined last week to match a more than 42-year low, indicating employers are upbeat about an economy that bogged down in the first quarter.
Non sequitur.
1) Diane Feinstein was born in 1933.
2) Israel was founded in 1948.
3) You're an idiot.
Can you corroborate your claim that Senator Sanders is being or has been manipulated by Russia?
Obstacles are way too high. Current calculation requires 60 Giga Watt laser beam. Largest nuclear plant in USA, Palo Verde, Arizona, has approx 1.25 Giga Watt power.
60GW for 2 hours, or one launch every 2 days, powered by a single power plant. It's not clear that the mission requires more frequent launches than that, so there's no basis to say "way too high" here.
More: according to the plan, installations that generate power of 50 nuclear plants would need to be sent to space, for lasers are supposed to be above the atmosphere.
Actually, according to the plan, the lasers will be sited on the Earth's surface. They will require a mile-wide adaptive optics array to compensate for atmospheric distortion. Perhaps you aren't too familiar with the plan you're citing.
Finally, the power of 50 nuclear plants would be concentrated into the area more or less equal to handkerchief. I think that handkerchief will evaporate, maybe it will not. However there might be some interference at the interstellar probe. Technical difficulties are insurmountable so far.
While a "handkerchief" would likely "evaporate" (become ionized, more realistically), I believe this mission actually plans to use solar sails. Solar sails are defined by having insufficient absorption to undergo catastrophic heating in the course of ordinary use. Consequently, I think the technical difficulties are a lot less technically difficult than your hyperbole would otherwise suggest.
Anyway, the last time I have checked approximately 50% of world's population did not have proper sewer, and approximately 15% do not have running water and electricity. Just a small fraction of interstellar travel project would bring these necessities to the fellow human beings. I would say, that we should build few nuclear power plants here on earth first.
If you believe that "a small fraction" of $10B would provide water, sanitation, and electrical services to every last person on Earth, you're mistaken.
I think that we will need 100 years to send a interstellar probe.
So, after all that, you think their estimate of 40 years isn't that far off?
You were offered an unambiguous explanation for why your opinion is based on false premises.
Your response alleges ad hominem, despite GP's argument not hinging on your apparent ignorance of the subject matter. That's not how ad hominem works. A clear argument against your claims was offered in the first two sentences of GP's post, and the subsequent two sentences were offered more as commentary regarding your ignorance. Their omission would not have any impact on the validity of the argument against your claims.
As to it being unjustified to group communism and socialism together... Show why "my" association of the two that I made in the context I made them was in error.
GP stated that both Tzarist Russia and Soviet Russia were autocratic totalitarian regimes, not communist or socialist. This is consistent with the dictionary definitions of these words, and his claim is factually correct. That's why this is a valid rebuttal of your argument. Though GP did go on to then put forth a compelling argument suggesting that you are indeed rather ignorant of the subject, his rebuttal of your claim does not hinge upon this. In other words, while it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, that's not what makes you wrong. Your claims are wrong independently of your ignorance. Hopefully that clears up this confusion.
Of course, after whining on and on about ad hominem attacks (and entirely ignoring the actual argument against your claim), you go on to say GP is "pathetic". Good luck with the moderators.
All that research done by Pratt and Whitney... Boeing... Lockheed Martin...
Terrible examples. None of these companies invest significantly in pure research.
If socialism were superior the Russians would have won the Cold War.
Non sequitur, affirming the consequent.
They didn't because its inferior.
Repeating that same unsupported assertion.
Stop for a moment and look at all your dumb arguments are apply them to the soviets. IF you were right, they should have been dramatically more successful. Instead they were dramatically less successful.
I don't think anyone's arguing that a corrupt dictatorship leads to optimal outcomes. You seem to be falsely drawing an equivalence between despotism and socialism.
That 20th century cage match apparently isn't taught in schools these days. Socialism lost on everything but politics. And the political argument is sustained largely by ignorance and sophistry. Any time empiricism becomes relevant... it gets its head twisted off and spiked into the ground like a tent pole.
Hi, I'm a political refugee from a Soviet satellite state. I really appreciate the history lesson, grounded in your comprehensive understanding of these matters, sir. With insights like these, it's apparent that you're an accomplished academic in this discipline, as your intimate knowledge of life behind the Iron Curtain dwarfs even my own.
Or you're just spewing bullshit. Actually, yea, I think that's it. Carry on with your Red Scare, though.
This stuff is why I don't understand people that consistently blame government for cost overruns, but never consider that corporations game the system to maximize their profits.
But, but, but it creates jobs!!!
You can convert zip codes to the approximate area quite easily
[citation needed]
Theory 3a: Climate change is entirely, primarily, or even merely majority (>50.1%) caused by human activity. If true then we should prioritize the removal of carbon emissions wherever possible. The problem is that even without entrenched financial interests like "big oil", there's still the fact that getting rid of carbon emissions is expensive and time consuming. There's removing/minimizing emissions by moving away from coal and other combustion based electricity generation, improving efficiency of how we use energy, replacing combustion engines with electric wherever possible (road vehicles, aircraft, ships), and reducing emissions in manufacturing. All of this is expensive, and gets even more expensive the faster we try to do it, however, the expense is worth it if this theory is correct.
Theory 3b: Human activity has little to no impact on climate change. If this is true then shifting our society away from energy production that has carbon emissions will do little good in combating climate change, and would be a massive distraction/diversion of resources, money, time, and research away from finding a solution (assuming one exists). Hypothetically if this theory is the correct one then an increase in global carbon emissions in the name of getting to a solution faster would be the correct choice (i have no clue how that would work, maybe constructing a weather control device that requires power orders of magnitude greater than what we have now?).
So, you're saying that the disagreement is over the particular mechanism with which we gain control over the global climate? That would be easier to swallow if the 'Theory 3b' people had a suggestion more comprehensive than "i have no clue how that would work, maybe constructing a weather control device that requires power orders of magnitude greater than what we have now?"
The AGW-denying side has not yet proposed a mechanism by which to stop non-anthropogenic global warming. Furthermore, they haven't even indicated a willingness to do so. If they were proposing geoengineering techniques unrelated to managing atmospheric CO2, this would be a much more believable claim, but they're not. The argument, as I've heard it, runs along the lines of "it's not our fault, so there's no need to do anything about it".
Mod parent up: hilarious.
Even worse, about 80% of those who will be affected by the price increase did not realize it was coming, according to research from JP Morgan.
It really should be 18% of Netflix customers or 30% of US Netflix customers, don't realize their prices will increase. So, yea, "most"...
So... I am a believer in global climate change. Whether that climate is being significantly effected [sic] by human activity is something I am skeptical about.
You sound like a reasonable, level-headed person. So, based on what you've said, I have only a single question to ask:
Why does it matter if climate is being significantly affected by human activity or not?
From where I sit, it seems that a warming climate, rising sea levels, and acidification of the oceans would impose significant costs on human civilization. Whether these things are being caused by human activity or not, it seems worthwhile to engage in efforts to stop and undo these changes to the climate. Consequently, I am unable to see the relevance of the distinction you draw between natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change.
Why do you keep referring to the person you're replying to by name? Isn't the intended recipient of your message clearly implied by slashdot's comment threading mechanism?
When I sold my business, I did donate to the government. Yes, donate. I gave the US Government money, my money, and without force. I specifically was able to donate to NASA. In case your'e curious, you can donate to NASA but you can't earmark the donation for a project. Donations must go to the general operations fund. I was wanting to earmark my donations for educational outreach programs but that's impossible.
How? I half-assedly looked into this not long ago and was unable to find any information that would suggest this is possible. Is there a particular threshold that must be met? (I'm not wealthy)
Now, I saw your later corrected post, so I don't mean to lay it on with all the others, but...
If copyright infringement and theft are to be equated, then when I rob a bank, how do I get the prosecutor to charge me with copyright infringement?
Steam is DRM.
If Steam is DRM and not a game distribution platform, then how do games that implement Steam get distributed?
It's the nature of socialist "justice" whiners to try & suppress anything that challenges their worldview.
As can be verified by my posting history, I'm both a socialist and strongly opposed to the "social justice warrior" phenomenon. Please do not conflate two entirely unrelated issues.
If you're indeed referring to socialists who you feel are whiners, and not social justice warriors, including the word "justice" only confuses the subject.
The word "militia" states that you are expected to fight on it's own does it not?
I don't believe so, no. I read through the cited statute several times now, and couldn't find such an expectation codified in law. If you believe that the word 'militia' carries a legal meaning beyond its legal definition, I believe the burden is on your to demonstrate your rationale. Furthermore, I'd caution that while your viewpoint sure seems reasonable, it is in direct contradiction to the law as I've cited it. If we're going to have a discussion about the law, the law itself should trump any "reasonable viewpoint". If you prefer to have a discussion about subjective opinions, and not the law, we can do that too. However, that was not my original aim.
This whole weasel bullshit of pretending to be a soldier to justify military weapons (instead of what you can have as a useful tool for whatever task you need it for) and then running in horror from any responsibility to serve really makes me laugh a great deal at the 2nd amendment weenies that don't even know how to store a gun safely.
Your bias is showing, and bias rarely helps one reach objectively correct conclusions. I'm glad you find this subject amusing, but it's not clear how this proclamation is intended to contribute to the discussion. In case you're still in search of more humor, I refer you to the writings and rulings of Justice Cooley for more information about the tasks for which tools like arms might be useful.
I'm familiar with this plot line, and it doesn't end well for humanity.
In case you missed it, the single link my previous post seems to answer the very question you're asking.
10 U.S. Code Section 311 says you can be (or rather, you are, or must be) a part of the militia, and it does not mention anything about being expected to fight when needed.
Beyond the Selective Service act (which does indeed impose such an expectation on members of the militia in the form of a military draft), which is limited to only a subset of the militia (more specifically, the subset which is registered to vote), I'm not aware of any statutes which would impose such an expectation.
I understand that the law may seem counterintuitive in this sense, but it's still the law. If you disagree that the referenced statute legally defines the militia, or if you disagree with my claim that there are no other statutes which impose an expectation of participation in military combat on every member of the militia, then I invite you to present your case. Otherwise, I'm not sure what basis you have for disagreeing.
Here's some relevant information.
Would you agree that a citation of US statute takes this well out of the realm of "andwaving and argumentative magic"? Or are you going to continue this ignorant line of reasoning into the future?
But then you go on to make a handful of your own "unsupported assumptions", like what constitutes fairness in how people split a bill at a restaurant. Okay.
Then, you've got your magnum opus:
The only way to guarantee fairness would be to come up with an arrangement that everyone involved agrees to voluntarily, but since the subject is taxation that isn't an option. Lack of voluntary consent is built in to the definition.
In practice, this means that the only practical way to guarantee fairness is anarchy, as there isn't a single issue in society with which at least one person disagrees. So, a world with no common governments is the only way to guarantee fairness? A world with no mechanisms to enforce fairness is the only one in which fairness is guaranteed? Might-makes-right is guaranteed fairness?
That said, a system where some people are forced to pay more than the value of the goods and services they receive in order that others can receive benefits they did not pay for is not a system one could reasonable expect the former group to consent to, or consider fair.
Any analysis beyond the myopic one you exhibit here would reach a different conclusion.
The definition of "dependent" is obvious. The rich are already covering most of the cost of public services for society as a whole; they could easily afford to buy the same (or better) services just for themselves, assuming they even want those services in the first place.
That's a false statement. If it was obvious, I wouldn't be asking for it to be defined. Furthermore, it is not self-evident that the rich could afford to each independently maintain their own standing army, develop their own nuclear weapons programs, comparable to that which is provided by the federal government. Additionally, the assumption that they'd want to maintain security over their wealth seems corroborated by their actions, so it's not much of an assumption to say that they do indeed want those services in the first place.
Sure, but if they aren't dependent on it then its disappearance would not hurt them
That's only true if dependence has a really weird definition. You seem to be defining "dependent" as "drawing any amount of benefit from", which I disagree with. I'm not "dependent" on the existence of Italian Futurism in sculpture, as I'm not an Italian sculptor selling my wares in the 1930s, but its disappearance would hurt me nonetheless.
quite the opposite, actually, since as it stands they are paying more than their fair share of the costs, which makes the system a net loss so far as they are concerned.
Again, the assumption that they pay more than their fair share, without either defining what would constitute "fair" or quantifying the benefits they receive from participation in society. If what you say is true, that participation in society is a net loss for the truly wealthy, then shouldn't we see some significant number of wealthy people actually choosing to leave society and relocate to places like Somalia where they wouldn't have such a "net loss" to worry about? Do you have an explanation for why the wealthy seem to prefer this "net loss" situation, if it is indeed a net loss for them?
Indeed. To begin with, you would need to define what "their share" means.
Since we tax income, the implication here was that "their share" would be a fixed proportion of income.
If the point were to distribute the burden fairly, one's fair share would be determined by how much one contributes to the cost of the system, not how much one earns.
That's not known, and it's not practically knowable.
As a rule these factors are inversely related: the more you make, the less dependent you are on government services.
In the parlance of our times, CITATION NEEDED. First, you'd need to define "dependent" here. Second, you need to realize that people contribute to the cost of the system independently of whether they depend on it.
One's share of the costs certainly does not scale linearly (or super-linearly) with increasing income.
I question this unsupported claim.