You called me a parasite; my position is that it is unethical "under any circumstances to take anything that doesn't belong to him, nor to harm anyone else's person or property." So that must be your definition of a parasite.
Probability based on what? I know about all the statistics and tables and so forth but as to categorizing each of us relative to the other you only know enough about you to do so and maybe not that much.
This sentence is more incoherent than usual. Probability based on US census data. Any randomly selected person is 80-85% likely to earn less than I do. Thus the chance that he pays less tax than I do is roughly the same. On the other hand, roughly 3/4 of doctoral degree holders earn more than I do--most of them being MDs, whereas I'm a lowly mathematician.
I can’t see that enough of that bottom 50% participate in a forum like this to allow you to figure the probability you claim. Your sample is off.
I'll be happy to teach you a lesson in conditional probability if desired. Since no demographic information about Freepers is available, I have no choice but to use the conditional probability based on the assumption that nothing is known about Freepers. However, the sample is quite probably not as far off as you claim. I doubt welfare queens frequent this site, but people from all walks of life do, including high-paid lawyers and doctors that make much more than me, and other folks making minimum wage or living on a pension. It's doubtful that we're significantly richer than the rest of the population.
Why do you think that, in our society (it’s an assumption on my part that you believe in the existence of society) that being in the top 1% of income earners keeps you from being a parasite?
The calculation is impossible, since costs are not allocated at all proportionally to consumption of government "services". Note, though, that I didn't call the one-percenters "non-parasites"; I called everyone in the 99% a "parasite". That's true, broadly speaking; there's no question that the other 99% aren't paying a proportional share. Some hillbillies might not be parasites, in that they might consume less government "service" than they pay for in taxes on their moonshine.
If you’re that high up the income scale and you’re paying all your taxes I will say good for you.
I make much less than many people on this forum; no need to get all congratulatory. As for "all my taxes", I'm not sure what you mean. I pay my tax bill, and it's probably higher than yours. However, it's fundamentally impossible to know what "my share" of the national budget is. Even if we pretend that I wouldn't dispute parts of the budget--like farm subsidies to Rupert Murdoch--the fact is that "my share" of those and other budget items cannot be calculated. If it could be, then the government would be able to bill us each "our fair share", but it's impossible. No number of accountants, all with infinite IQs, could possibly determine that figure.
I have to wonder what you do to earn such a high income but I won’t ask because thinking back on your posts I surmise it might be illegal.
You are apparently over-estimating my income. You'd be surprised how little the 80th percentile earns, just as you'd probably be surprised how much the 50th percentile earns.
It can’t be anything intellectual because what I see of your thinking has all the substance, composition and consistency of a fresh cow pie.
More ad hominem, if you're collecting samples. False, too, if you're interested. I've been privileged to do some very interesting research.
'Every mention of the other guy, nor even every insult, is an "ad hominem argument".'
" I've been privileged to do some very interesting research."
All privately funded I trust.
As to the rest of your post, it doesn't matter.
What matters as far as I am concerned is::
You refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to the implicit contract to which you would hold me.
You deny you should be subject to violence for failing to meet obligations to which you say you did not commit but threaten me with violence for failing to meet an obligation to which I say I did not commit.
In relation to the above, most of what you've posted (to me at least) in this thread looks like strawman and red herring. (By the way, there's little challenge when it's so easy to use your own words against your words nor when I can just keep repeating a statement you don't or can't comprehend. You don't or can't see the paradox.)
You say "I claim that apart from self-defense, which is itself an unalterable force of nature, there are no rules at all" which makes it everyman for himself where you are concerned. I don't see how you can survive like that but it's your problem not mine.
We have no common frame of reference.