Releveant to the issue at hand: in the state of nature, pasty nerds like Zuck and Brin and Page don't rule the world. Their lot in life is to be subservient to the physically strong, or else be the victim of their strength. Its society, acting through a government that makes possible the kind of orderly world in which Google or Facebook are possible.
There are practical reasons to tax more or less. But no moral ones. Without ordered civilization real wealth creation, beyond the savage subsistance level Franklin points out, is not possible and by virtue of that fact there are no moral limits on taxation.
There absolutely are moral limits on taxation. Otherwise we are all just slaves to the state.
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." -- Abraham Lincoln
We're not slaves because we choose the level to tax ourselves at and presumably we're free to leave whenever we want. Its more like a condo complex with a ridiculously high HOA fee. You gotta pay it if you live in the building, but nothing is stopping you from getting on the owners board and voting yourself a lower fee, or moving to a different building.
Taxes are theft precisely because we don't tax ourselves. In America, taxes are set by the majority choosing to not tax themselves very much and instead to tax a rich minority. It's two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.
The minority nonetheless choose to participate in that group vote. Moreover, they often do so before they become rich, and only complain about the outcome after they reap the benefits of participating in that society.
Though it shouldn't go without saying that "in the state of nature" the planet's carrying population for humans is far below 7 billion.
Regardless of whatever fine tuning is needed for long term sustainability, the solutions that have already allowed so many humans, with a good portion of them even having an excellent quality of life, are not possible through the naive exercise of brute force.
Of course, that all goes to reinforce the idea that complete independence and self-sufficiency are unrealistic—the planet can handle far more humans living in communities and cities than it can handle humans as hunter gatherers or humans farming for themselves without trade—and that no one today is successful independent of the economic environment where they find themselves, but it doesn't mean that there is something "unnatural" about people other than warlords having the most influence and power.
> but it doesn't mean that there is something "unnatural" about people other than warlords having the most influence and power.
I didn't say it was "unnatural." Indeed, given history, you can say that it's the natural tendency of humans to organize into collectives. The term "state of nature" usually refers not to whatever humans do naturally, but rather the condition that exists prior to the creation of society.
But with all the technological advancement, I wonder how much physical strength matters anymore in a world where everyone can own and use a handgun or a rifle.
I think guns and the 2nd Amendment help the "weak" much more than taxes.
If I am correctly understanding you, the physically strong are paying for a system designed to keep them under. If Zuck and Brin and Page deserve to pay protection, my high school prom king deserves recompense.
The physically strong are giving up the only thing that can be termed as akin to a natural right: their ability to use violence to take what they want. They do this because society as a whole recognizes its better for most everyone to have a different set of rules. But the only basis for that state of affairs is the social contract.
But in a sense you're right. Under our system someone who might be a warlord is stuck bagging groceries. Whether he still benefits is a philosophical question. He may be better off in absolute terms in a society with modern medicine, even if he is a grocery bagger in that world. But psychological research shows that humans perceive prosperity in relative terms. Better to be a warlord in a primitive society than a peasant in a modern one.
There are practical reasons to tax more or less. But no moral ones. Without ordered civilization real wealth creation, beyond the savage subsistance level Franklin points out, is not possible and by virtue of that fact there are no moral limits on taxation.