That's a little simplistic, and I say this as a capitalist. The analogy doesn't ever consider that "man 10" often doesn't pay $59, because there is a rule that

That's a little simplistic, and I say this as a capitalist. The analogy doesn't ever consider that "man 10" often doesn't pay $59, because there is a rule that he can buy 2 shots for the bartender's hot daughters at $1 a piece and reduce his beer burden to $12. It also doesn't consider that the whole point of a progressive taxation system is to pay for a finite amount of beer that cannot be counted on to be equally allotted. Not everyone receives 1 beer every day. Sometimes, the men only collectively use 8 beer, other 12 (especially when the men figure that they should buy some beer for the bar across the street). Sometimes, "man 6" needs 3 beers because he had a bad day, but he still only pays $3, because paying $9 would bankrupt him and create 5 people paying nothing, which is a detriment the entire group. The breakdowns continue... 2-3 out of the first four men actually do not stay permanently in this state. Often, they become payers into the system as well at different levels. The system is designed to encourage this mobility, because at the end of the day, we are better with as many "tenth men" as possible. The tenth man often can only be the tenth man with men of 5, 6 and 7 calibre to work for him. Without this labour, he is only a "eighth man". The system is symbiotic. The 10th man cannot just up and leave, anymore than the first man can, otherwise he would have already done so. The fact is that he too benefits from this relationship. At any rate, my overall point isn't that one way is better than any other way, it's that the taxation systems of modern western nations - in that they are meant not only to fund government but to change macro-behaviors - are much too complex to be compared to 10 men buying beers.