Who were the first statists?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, the only reason individuals would have resorted to agriculture, which is work, would be to address a scarcity. Maybe food was abundant, but not necessarily the most desirable food. Or food involving the production of a food item such as bread, or alcohol (probably first discovered when some grain fermented in a bowl of water during one harvest morning ...[text shortened]... avery as production became more complex led to much more elaborate systems to protect the elite.

Agriculture is less work than hunting dangerous big game or gathering.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't think you understood my point.

Sure it works for one, but what happens when you have an entire country of people in need?

That doesn't happen very often. Indeed, poorer countries are often particularly noted for their imbalances in wealth.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Agriculture is less work than hunting dangerous big game or gathering.

Maybe very simple agriculture, but it's a lot of work leading up to the harvest. Gathering is just harvest. And with agriculture you're wedded to a single place. I doubt it came naturally even with cognition.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
That doesn't happen very often. Indeed, poorer countries are often particularly noted for their imbalances in wealth.

It looks like it is happening in Europe right now! Perhaps countries like Greece and Spain would fall under your category of poorer countries.

Originally posted by Eladar
It looks like it is happening in Europe right now! Perhaps countries like Greece and Spain would fall under your category of poorer countries.

You think the entire populations of Greece and Spain are people "in need"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You think the entire populations of Greece and Spain are people "in need"?

If you don't have a need, then you don't need a safety net. If the entire population uses the economic safety net, then the entire nation is in need.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you don't have a need, then you don't need a safety net. If the entire population uses the economic safety net, then the entire nation is in need.

You think the entire populations of Greece and Spain use the "economic safety net"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You think the entire populations of Greece and Spain use the "economic safety net"?

Eladar is maneuvering you into an argument that the rich shouldn't pay taxes for the poor's safety net because making person A pay for person B is BAD MMK

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You think the entire populations of Greece and Spain use the "economic safety net"?

Yes I do. The Social Safety Net includes socialized medicine.

I think that for all practical purposes the entire populations of Greece and Spain rely on the government. If this was not the case, then there would be no problem with government cut backs.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Eladar is maneuvering you into an argument that the rich shouldn't pay taxes for the poor's safety net because making person A pay for person B is BAD MMK

No, my position is that there are not enough rich people to support the safety net.

You diminish what you tax.

You increase what you subsidize.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, my position is that there are not enough rich people to support the safety net.

You diminish what you tax.

You increase what you subsidize.

If safety nets cannot be supported, how come they exist?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If safety nets cannot be supported, how come they exist?

I think we are finding out that they can't. This is what Spain and Greece are finding out. The money from the rest of Europe will run out soon enough.

Originally posted by Eladar
I think we are finding out that they can't. This is what Spain and Greece are finding out. The money from the rest of Europe will run out soon enough.

They've existed for nearly a century now. The problem is that they are mismanaged.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
They've existed for nearly a century now. The problem is that they are mismanaged.

See what I said earlier about what happens when you tax something vs subsidize.

Originally posted by Eladar
No, my position is that there are not enough rich people to support the safety net.

You diminish what you tax.

You increase what you subsidize.

Greece is broke in part because of tax evasion. There are plenty of rich people but they have done their best to bankrupt their country through their selfish efforts to avoid contributing their surplus wealth to support the poor. A year or so ago I read that Greece's deficit was basically equivalent to the amount that the nation's rich had failed to pay in taxes they legally owed.

Greece is also broke because it has adopted an unsuitable currency which has denied it economic flexibility. This unfortunate fact has precious little to do with the viability of a state safety net.