Maggie's Farm

This sounds like a "chicken or the egg" argument, i.e. which came first? Was it private individuals engaged in economic activities (making goods and exchanging them with others) who recognized that entering into a social contract (forming a set of governing rules or a government) that allowed them to collectively enforce contracts (make people keep their promises) and protect property (so that foreign or domestic pirates couldn't steal the fruits of their labor) would foster a climate favorable to each individuals wealth creation and hence they all contributed a part of what they had already earned and saved to allow the government to carry out its functions which included building roads, etc. that these private citizens had thus already paid for OR did governments already have some of its own wealth and build these roads, etc. from its own earnings?

The answer - to anyone but a liberal who has NEVER owned or run a real private sector business and actually created jobs - should be obvious: The source of ALL government revenues (the money government uses to buy things) is private business. The government creates ZERO jobs and ZERO wealth. The sole reason for its creation was to protect property rights, enforce contracts and prevent the free rider problem.

Unfortunately, once men attain positions of political power, many forget where the money ultimately comes from and what their function should be. They become social engineers intent on fixing "problems" that either do not exist or that they do not understand how to fix. Their arrogance and ignorance leads them to believe that government is the dog and the private sector is the tail instead of vice versa.