You may be right, but as with the trucks, I would expect a much less sharp minima: Smartphone and instant messaging adoption didn't happen all at once, but from this graph we see that we're going from a substantial year-on-year decrease directly to a large year-on-year increase. A change that is gradually adopted over the course of several years can't really cause that kind of effect.

The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I'm honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this? I would think increasing truck sizes would cause a much more shallow minima, since truck sizes don't suddenly increase from one year to the next.

I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.

The government doesn't just need to fund itself, it needs the resources to provide collective goods like a social safety net (unemployment, health care, legal assistance, and other fundamental rights). No matter how you twist it, those resources have to eventually come from the population. We can call that resource acquisition "taxing the population", disregarding the details of how it's done. In that case, taxes are an absolutely fundamental part of implementing a social contract that involves the collective helping each other provide collective goods. If you remove taxation (in this expanded sense) completely, you are no longer capable of sustaining a government of any kind: You're left with a collection of individuals with no common programs. Note: I'm saying here that any common program implies that people are providing resources to the collective, which is a de facto form of taxation in the expanded sense.

Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes?

Disclaimer: The following retort is conceptual, not tied to your concrete example. If russia, or israel, or china, etc... invaded your country to displace your people, steal your homes and resources, and kill those in the way, do you believe that your government has any obligation to protect you? If so, who should risk their life to enact that protection? Who should decide whether to resist or not in the first place?

The point of these questions is that if we believe that we have a right to protection, we are implying that someone has an obligation to protect. Furthermore, that someone's obligation to protect is tied to your right to protection, not their personal opinion on who they want to protect you from. Basically, stating that you would only conditionally fight to protect your country against an invading force is incompatible with believing you have the right to protection from any invading force. If it comes down to opinion, there's nothing in the way of everyone else stepping aside when your house is the one being bombed, because they personally feel that particular bombing is justified. If that can happen, you have no right to protection.

Furthermore, unless someone is obliged to protect, nobody can have a right to protection. These are two sides of the same coin. What I advocate for is that everyone in a society should have equal rights to protection, and that we should collectively share the attached obligation to protect.

In the context of Modern US the majority of people pay the taxes and the minority of people who have the majority of wealth do not. Do you think the Social contract is already broken?

Oh, absolutely YES. The social contract in the US is broken to the point where I don't know if it can be repaired.

Do you actually believe any modern war was actually for its stated purpose?

That depends: I think Ukraine defending itself from a russian invasion is legitimate. I also think there are other wars where there is some party legitimately defending themselves against aggression. This question seems loaded in the sense that it appears to me like you're asking if I think a war of aggression is defensible. On general grounds, I would immediately say no.

Do you think it is wrong sending young men to die in the Middle East for oil profits?

Obviously, YES (it's pretty obvious that you're writing this question in the context of US invasions/wars of aggression in the Middle East, so I understand the context of the question). I honestly have no idea what would make you think that I would answer otherwise.

It seems, based on your questions, like you think I'm some US imperialist/capitalist. I couldn't be much further from it.

Having answered your questions, I would very much like to see your answers to mine.

I'm gonna lean on another commenter who made me realise the legitimate reasoning behind something like this (disregarding the fact that two years is absurdly high): If we permit anyone to do whatever "cleaning" they themselves deem reasonable without approval, we risk that unknowledgable people with good intentions cause serious damage. One reason could be that they create an acute flood risk (you're right: garbage shouldn't be flood protection, but the actual flood protection is built around existing circumstances, and if removing the garbage causes a major risk to people losing their homes, the correct approach is to first prepare the flood protection, then remove the garbage). Another is that people can unknowingly or unintentionally destroy habitats or otherwise damage the environment.

The point is: We have some very competent people that are capable of assessing the impact of various cleaning operations. We need to let those people do their job. There can be very complex interactions in play, that turn your good intentions into catastrophic consequences. Therefore, we cannot allow laymen to judge how large cleaning operations should be conducted.

Full disclaimer: While I think the above reasoning is sound, I think we should be very careful regarding how unauthorised cleaning operations are punished. For example, it seems absurd to me to give jail time for it. When the person in question is obviously acting with good intentions, it's much more reasonable to sentence them to take some course where they can learn about why what they were doing was potentially harmful, and perhaps sentence them to community service working on some authorised project. That way, you help them learn, let them work on something they want to contribute to, and get more resources for the authorised projects.

You could argue that there is though, since the genie will grant three wishes. In that case, it operates like

granted_wishes = 0
while granted_wishes < 3:
    wish = receive_wish()
    granted = grant_wish(wish)  # True if wish is granted, false otherwise (invalid wish etc)
    if granted:
        granted_wishes += 1

So we get

1. Do opposite of next -> granted_wishes = 1
2. Complete 3 -> granted_wishes = 2
3. Ignore 1 -> Enter time loop (recurse)

-inner loop-

1. Do opposite of next (ignored due to outer loop) -> granted_wishes = 0
2. Ignore 3 -> granted_wishes = 1
3. Ignore 1 -> enter time loop (recurse)

-inner loop 2-

1. Do opposite of next (ignored due to outer loop) -> granted_wishes = 0
2. Ignore 3 -> granted_wishes = 1
3. Ignore 1 -> enter time loop (recurse)

.... etc.

We get an infinite time-loop recursion, because we never reach the third guess in the inner loops.

I'm trying to be very explicit on two things: 1) My country also has plenty of issues that need work, but I think the overall system/philosophy behind how it currently works is worth defending. 2) I acknowledge that many countries don't provide the social safety and protection for its citizens that warrants the contributions I'm talking about.

I thought "I got mine" would mean that I was content with my own situation and therefore neglected the plight of others. That's not at all what I'm doing or attempting to convey.

In the text you quoted, I was using myself to represent the generic citizen. I could rephrase it as: "I'm lucky enough to live in a state that provides both for everyone living within the borders, so I think it's fair that all the citizens with the right to influence that state also contribute to carrying the burden of supporting those rights as long as they get the benefits of them."

Since you ask, I'm from Norway.

I absolutely agree with your point here. I think part of the problem is probably the system/law. When you go for literal years without any action from the local government, there need to be laws/channels that you can use to escalate the issue.

Basically, a clean and safe environment should be mandated by law. If the local government doesn't uphold that law, the issue should be raised to higher levels (and the individuals responsible for the local government breaking the law should be punished accordingly). If higher levels don't resolve it, your division of power is broken, since the government is blatantly violating rulings from the judiciary. If the division of power is broken.... revolt?

How so? Do you not think that the right of social benefits should be coupled with the obligation to pay taxes if you're capable? Do you actually believe that, if a neighbouring country invaded, you have some kind of right to hide in the basement while someone else mans the AA protecting your house?

If the answer to either is "no", then you probably agree with me.

You argument is a weak version of I got mine

I quite honestly don't see what you mean. I'm advocating for how I think a society should work, while acknowledging that I live in a society that's fairly close to that ideal. Sure, we have a lot of stuff to improve, but I have yet to see the kind of situation in my country that you're talking about.

"I got mine" would imply that I'm somehow ignoring the problems that exist elsewhere: I'm not, I'm simply acknowledging that I'm lucky enough to live in a system that I feel is worth supporting.

This is an implicit part of my point: If the state doesn't provide a social safety net, or protection from violence, then you're also (in the moral framework I'm advocating for) absolved of your obligation to support said state through taxes and military service.

I'm lucky enough to live in a state that provides both, so I think it's completely fair that I'm obligated to support that system as long as I also get the benefits of it. At its core, a state is a social contract regarding what you can expect of others (via the state), and what others can expect of you. If you're seeing only obligations and no benefits, then the state (social contract) is dysfunctional and/or unfair.

Thanks! We definitely have major issues with the increasing wealth gap, I can only hope we're able to deal with it sooner rather than later.

vote for policies to address this wealth gap before it is too late

I'm doing my part! (Ref. comment below that wondered if I was a Starship Troopers citizen)

Well if the counter doesn't reset (because the genie exists outside of time and therefore grants all the wishes "simultaneously" from its own perspective) we definitely get a problem, because granting 3 makes it impossible for 3 to be granted, and we get the paradox implied by the comic

1. Do the opposite of next
2. Do not grant 3
3. Ignore 1

If you grant 1 and 2, then you cannot grant 3 (since 3 implies not granting 1). If you grant 3, then 2 cannot be granted (since it implies not granting 3). This is the simple form of the paradox.

I a bit sceptical of basing punishments in situations like this on competence rather than intention, I say that as an engineer myself. If you give milder punishment to people that "know what they're doing", you're essentially subverting the whole premise that there is a single entity responsible for evaluating what is safe and what isn't.

Thanks! I'm honestly surprised by how controversial it was to state that we should all have the same rights, and the same obligation to defend/uphold those rights for each other.

I would honestly like to hear a better alternative. Is it fair, reasonable, or just, that some subset of society is tasked with putting their life on the line to defend everyone else? That very quickly devolves into something like the US system where people with less resources and options end up signing up out of economic necessity. Then they end up fighting and dying for a richer elite that doesn't have a skin in the game.

It's a pretty simple concept really: I'll protect my neighbours if necessary, and they'll protect me. We're in this together. The only incentive anyone should have to be in the military is to defend themselves and their (extended) neighbours.

You can make the exact same argument for taxes: Should some subset of society be taxed, while everyone gets the same social safety net and general rights? I think not: I think everyone should contribute, and that everyone should get the benefits.

As for the starship troopers comment: That society is fundamentally segregated into people with rights, and people without them. It also happens to be a heavily militaristic society. Starship Troopers shows exactly the kind of society I think looks terrible, because most soldiers there effectively sign up out of necessity, while those with resources can live peacefully. I'm advocating for equality, not segregation. I'm also trying to be explicit about saying that the only use of a military should be defensive. You could summarise this by saying that, in peacetime, we should have an absolutely minimal military, and everyone has equal rights. If the need arises, everyone has the same obligation to defend each other.

But you said the counter didn't reset? If it grants 2 in the "second loop", that implies 1 was granted (since we didn't invert 2), but you can't grant 2 (uninverted) and also grant 1.

If you're operating with a time-loop recursion, you run into the problem of my initial comment. If you try to grant all three wishes simultaneously, you run into the obvious contradiction. The only way you get out is if you allow a time-loop recursion, but for some reason count the ignored guess as a granted guess in the inner loop(s).

Because even though specifically your father chooses to follow the law, there is effectively no enforcement mechanism to prevent him from breaking it. It's not illegal for me to loudly announce the next stop on the bus, but I still abstain from doing it because I'm not an obnoxious asshole. Your father obeying the speed limit can be seen in the same way (plus, of course, that he may have a decent sense of self-preservation).

Fact is, if a rich person like your father is in a rush, they can choose to say "fuck it, I don't have time for this", and go speeding. Of course, anyone can do that, but the potential fine can be a strong deterrent for others, while having no influence on the rich. If you're caught and the fine is incurred, the punishment that can be debilitating for most people is a less than minor inconvenience for the rich.

Still plenty more food for the drones!

While I see what you're getting at, I still like this XKCD. I work as a developer, and have also worked in more "handy" fields. The thing with planes, elevators, and basically all other physical things is that they're limited by physics. A steel beam can't suddenly decide to spontaneously fail or disappear.

With code, that can feel pretty different. With experience, I've basically learned to assume that there is always some edge-case I haven't considered, that could trigger a bug. In a building, you can have redundant bolts, and over-dimensioned supports. A small mistake somewhere, a single missing bolt, won't cause a catastrophic failure. With code, it's different: A tiny, hard to notice mistake, can bring the whole think crashing down. Imagine if a plane could crash because the paint had a slightly non-uniform thickness...