I think it makes sense to be flexible: In a table, or other bureaucratic contexts, it makes sense to put the family name first. In daily speech, it's rather common that I'm in contact with family members (even more so historically), and it makes most sense to use the distinguishing name (first name) first.
If I'm with a group that includes siblings or parents/children, I can usually distinguish everyone by first name, while many people share last names.
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.
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)
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
I honestly think a lot of the people pushing this stuff know very well that they don't need it to succeed. They don't really care if the general public hates it, and it flops. As long as they can convince investors, they're pulling yearly paycheques and bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars. If it flops, some thousand employees (thralls) will be layed off. If it fails catastrophically, they might need to step down themselves, and move to a different company that "appreciates their ability to be a visionary".
These people are only capable of failing upwards, and they know it. The name of the game for them is waving their arms and blabbering about something to draw in investor money.