What you seem to fail to understand is that the state, including such things as infrastructure and legal protections, is a condition that makes possible your labor and its fruits.

Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone else’s labor without their consent? — NOS4A2

Who gets to decide the worth of their labour?

Your mistake is that you believe only the state can lay asphalt and build bridges and protect our dealings.

Who gets to decide the worth of their labour?

Consenting parties in the transaction.

Consenting parties in the transaction. — NOS4A2

The government is party to your employment contract.

Your mistake is that you believe only the state can lay asphalt and build bridges and protect our dealings. — NOS4A2

Do you live off the grid?

Can you build an interstate transportation system? Can you develop a national and international communication system? Can you protect yourself and your assets from from foreign and domestic attack?

No it isn’t.

I cannot nor can anyone else because the state has acquired all power to make decisions in those ventures, even if in most of those cases the contract work out to private people.

No it isn’t. — NOS4A2

You’re using money issued and backed by the government and the government enforces the terms of the contract.

If you’re that opposed to reality then establish your own currency, convince like-minded individuals to adopt it as tender, and trust in a gentleman’s agreement that you’ll be paid what has been agreed.

You’re using money issued and backed by the government and the government enforces the terms of the contract.

And? They are not a party to the contract.

I'm not stating shit. I've argued my case that since you have no moral right to specific outcomes of market transactions if the market does not take into account moral considerations. Since it doesn't, you have no moral claim to that income, merely a procedural one. You simply ignore the argument. So, obviously if you have no right to it then it's just to take that income. That's the whole point. You have not established that you have a right to pretax income because there's no moral basis for it.

I cannot nor can anyone else because the state has acquired all power to make decisions in those ventures, even if in most of those cases the contract work out to private people. — NOS4A2

It is not simple a matter of having acquired the power but of having the ability to do what individuals cannot. You cannot lay asphalt and build bridges on your neighbor's property without their permission.

You might object that the state does not have that right either, and yet these things make it possible for you to live as you do.

The question then is how much are you willing to give up in order to redress what you take to be the injustice of taxation?

People take into account moral considerations, so your market claim is nonsense, worth ignoring.

And? — NOS4A2

And it follows that the terms of agreement are only valid within the legal framework established and maintained by the government, and that the government owns the currency.

I am only saying it is wrong to take the fruits of someone’s labor, not that good statists cannot voluntarily fund the state and its efforts.

But they are not party to the contract.

Lmao. That must be why people, perfectly capable of working, are still starving, because the market takes care of them and why we needed environmental, health and safety laws to avoid mass deaths. Your claim is demonstrably false. The market mechanism does not result in moral outcomes because the fact that some people take them into consideration quite clearly doesn't result in overall just outcomes. You simply prefer to ignore the argument because your don't have a counter argument.

Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone else’s labor without their consent? — NOS4A2

You do consent, by living in a country with laws. Don't like them? Either leave or try to get them changed. Taxes have a long history. Take it up with the founding fathers and the constitution.

I am only saying ... — NOS4A2

It is what you are not saying that is at issue. You do not live in isolation. It is unjust for you to benefit from all that the state makes possible while at the same time denying it the funds that make it possible.

Once again: how much are you willing to give up in order to redress what you take to be the injustice of taxation?

If only we could go back to the glory years of feudalism and slavery. No big government regulations and taxes - simply "just" transactions between individuals.

Ah, the good ol' days.

Always remember what lies at the foundation of all this whining about taxes and government: narcissism and borderline solipsism. Oh -- I mean "freedom," of course.

The freedom to be a callous, selfish asshole.

First it’s the market doesn’t take into account moral considerations, now it’s the market doesn’t result in “overall just outcomes”. What state has achieved “overall just outcomes”?

Has my labor and wealth not paid for such “benefits”? That the slave benefits from the services provided to him by his master does not alter the injustice of such relationship. He is fed, housed, clothed—how dare he opine that the master exploits him.

Fine, we'll go back to my original claim. I was merely being charitable that some people do try to take it into account but since there's a clear information deficit they cannot correctly pursue it. Happy? Let's go. What's your argument instead of this waffling?

The “market” isn’t a human being. It doesn’t make moral considerations, so we agree. I don’t know how we move from that to the argument that the fruits of my labor shouldn’t be mine when it was procured via voluntary exchange between two consenting parties, as renumeration for work I performed for someone who wanted to buy it. Whose money should it be, if not mine?

Don't play dumb. Obviously I know "the market" isn't a human being. We're discussing market outcomes, which result from human interaction. Again, your argument is procedural. It's simple. This is the average market interaction. I go to the nearest grocery store because it's convenient and I buy what I need because I decided to make spaghetti bolognese. Nowhere did morality come into it.

Or, I need a part of my house renovated. I ask three builders for a quote. I select the cheapest. Nowhere did morality come into it. There's no moral argument that the builder winning the job is morally the most deserving. The point is you have no moral claim to be doing that work in the first place. It's merely that we agree that if two people agree on a job, that it should be done and considerations are exchanged but that's not because it's the moral outcome but because it's convenient.

You're so stuck in the procedural aspects of the transaction itself you confuse following the process with morality.

"It's all Obama's fault healthcare is so expensive!" Evil governments!

Has my labor and wealth not paid for such “benefits”? — NOS4A2

In what way has your labor and wealth paid for these benefits?

That the slave benefits from the services provided to him by his master does not alter the injustice of such relationship. — NOS4A2

Paying taxes does not make you a slave, but not paying taxes does make you a freeloader.

Sorry, but it is moral, right, proper, and virtuous conduct to pay someone for services rendered and to abide by voluntary and mutual agreements. It is immoral to do the opposite. You don’t go to the convenience store and walk out without paying, or refuse to pay the builder after he’s done.

Are you dense? This is totally not relevant to the argument. The argument is that the particular store I selected is not a moral choice but an economical one. The moral choice could be to directly buy from the farmer, or the small grocery store or order online from that new strap and compare each and every supplier before the outcome can be considered a moral optimal one. I should consider environmental impact and who needs it the most, knowing and weighing the personal situation of the people involved and dependent on the transaction and then there's the question of what a fair price should be - which tends to be too low as corporations live to externalise costs. So no, there no moral right for that store to claim payment from me, the claim is economic and legal.

Why cant it be economical, legal AND moral. Those are not mutually exclusive so why cant it be all 3? Why are you excluding the moral aspects? It would clearly be morally wrong to steal from the store right?

Let's say I have a moral claim of ownership to a painting I made. Someone steals it. You buy it from him in good faith and a year later sell it onwards to someone else.

You and your buyer both have acted morally and in good faith. Nevertheless, you have no moral claim to the ownership of the painting because it was stolen from me.

EDIT: the point being, there's a difference between acting morally (upholding a contract, not stealing) and our moral claims to what we own.