> Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. Perhaps it would help und

> Inevitably, it wouldn't be long before you start insisting that everyone help out with farming or hunting or repairs or something. Perhaps it would help understanding the other side if you were to look at it not as "insisting that everyone help out" but making trades with other people instead. You start trading them food in exchange for shelter, etc. Rather than expecting everyone to deserve equal shares of all output. Certainly this has happened many ways throughout history. The way you're suggesting is only one, and not only that, it's one which eventually falls apart as it scales up. > Taxes are moral so long as the taxed individuals consent to be part of the entity imposing the taxes, and there are very few individuals throughout history who have actually been willing to opt out of civilization. I'm not going to argue the "moral" aspect, but I think many people simply want to see the trade benefit of society and don't really care about much else. They're willing to tolerate the taxes for the sole reason that it's the only way for them to get access to wide trade networks currently. That trade benefit doesn't necessarily rely on much of what government provides and could, theoretically at least, operate completely without it, given the opportunity.