|
|
|
|
|
|
by s1artibartfast
522 days ago
|
|
|
I think you are missing a few points. First, is the adversarial nature of mate selection. A female peacock who falls for a trick will have fewer offspring that survive. The discerning hen will do better. Honest communication works because it is backed up actual fitness. It doesn't require group selection. Second, I think there is a lot more going on with respect to taxes. Taxes have existed for maybe 10,000 years. An armed man demanding half your stuff or they kill your family is a tax too. Same for a mature lion that eats what another animal killed. I would argue taxes are an inherent result of power imbalances among humans. Differences give rise to power differentials, which give rise to security concessions, which consolidate into kingdoms and nations. |
|
|
Tax fits the model pretty well. Defending against bandits who steal everything and move on is expensive, so kings that claim much smaller portions of wealth and scare off bandits tend to lead to better nations. (Then you've got modern democracies, that typically tax much more, but in a way which is actually compatible with higher growth because the money tends to be spent back into the sluggish parts of the economy rather than spent on zero sum competition with neighbouring kings/lords over territorial tax bases and precious import collection)