Society vs Anarchy. If you'd like to try an experiment where there is no government and nobody pays taxes, then we'll see how long it takes most of the CEOs to either get killed or to submit to a different CEO feudal lord. The battles to determine who will be King will be quite bloody. Alternatively, we could agree to have a society, in which everyone reaps the benefits. To make that happen we will need taxes. I'm all for libertarianism, but if you want a little fantasy called "Libertarian minimal government, but oh, no, wait, of course I want a police force to enforce property rights so I can keep my millions of dollars worth of stuff", well then suddenly you aren't really against taxes are you? You just want only the benefits that help you.

Except most of the services that are truly useful and needed, like Police, Firefighters, most roads, schools, are actually taxed and handled at the local level.

I dont think most Libertarians want 0 government, but I believe most government is best served locally where people can actually have influence and oversight.

Alternately, the tax system "penalizes" those who lack wealth by advantaging those who make money by owning capital. Pretending like a pre-existing, often un-earned economic advantage implies some sort of inherent moral or economic superiority is an almost laughably privilege-blind perspective.

The latter was a quote[0] from Thomas Sowell[1], who lacks neither qualifications (Being an Ivy League economics professor), nor privilege-blindness (Black man born in 1930).

[0]https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/943248573222850560

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

"often un-earned economic advantage implies some sort of inherent moral or economic superiority is an almost laughably privilege-blind perspective."

Using your logic (only related to this portion of your post, because as you stated money, does in fact, beget money), one should not work hard for one's progeny to have an inheritance? Should estate law just be modified and have all assets of a dead person go to the state?

Well, yes?

Inheritance is deeply ingrained in most cultures that I know of (so, western first-world cultures), but it had never made sense to me. Inheritance is pure unfairness.

And people far more versed in the economic arcanes than I am have the same opinion: see Karl Marx

> Should estate law just be modified and have all assets of a dead person go to the state?

Why not? Why should a dead person continue to exert their influence in the form of cash after they're done personally contributing to society? Why does someone deserve the fruits of their parents' labor? Do we also judge children by the sins of their father? If someone's money is transferrable, why not blame or shame?

It's unfortunate there is so much wealth inequality but that's a bit of a separate issue. In certain situations there should be a threshold and that's why estate taxes exist. However a lot of us not only work for ourselves but to better our childrens' future station or at least give them a better chance at not being riddled with debt like we are / were.

I think your sin analogy isn't an apples to apples comparison nor does it make sense in this context. However I'll play devil's advocate.

If your father was a felon / committed "sins" then most people in society are going to be skeptical about how you might turn out. It's an unfortunate truth. Not to say you will be a felon but based on the environment you were raised in you have a statistically higher likelihood of becoming a felon / deviant. So yes, you will be judged by the sins of your father whether you like it or not. That's why people leave their home towns for to start new lives or change their names. I'm not saying its right but that's the reality.