Sure, and you are given the amount you negotiate with your employer, less any taxes. Which is the amount you are compensated for the value of your labor. The amount your government retains is not a total loss for you either.

> Given this, I do 100% believe I am entitled to 100% of my Labor, time and knowledge.

If you produce a profit for your employer, you are not earning 100% of your labor, time, and knowledge.

Realistically, your labor produces some value X. The government AND your employer expect a certain percentage of X.

We both want the same ideal -- maximize worker wealth -- it's just that I see us getting there by decreasing employer percentages and accepting some taxes. You want to get there by decreasing taxes and accepting some loss of value to your employer.

>>The amount your government retains is not a total loss for you either.

I assume here you are implying I get something of value from my tax dollars, but this does not make it any less of a theft. If I come to your home, mow your grass then "tax" your car from you as payment for my services you would still call that theft. and rightly so.

Simply because the government "gave" me services I neither asked for nor consented to does not mean their taking of my labor / money is ceases to be theft

>If you produce a profit for your employer, you are not earning 100% of your labor, time, and knowledge.

This is false thinking, given your clear bias to socialism I can understand why you think that but it never the less false

My employer accepts my labor (at the agreed rate), then combines my labor with the labor of others, and their own capital investment / or other assets (like a brand) where by that is repackaged by them to be sold as goods and services on the market.

True the total value of the end product sold has to be greater than their purchase cost, that is how businesses work, and how a Value Add economy functions, that however does not mean I did not get 100% of the value of my labor, on the contrary.

I will ignore the attempt the slide in the government as a valid and ethical actor in the transaction, they are not. A market transaction consists of the buyer and seller that is all, the government is an unethical 3rd party leech on the system

Keep in mind I am not opposed to all government finance, at the end of the day I would even support a UBI, in fact I would support a UBI over all other forms of welfare. I however would implement such a system using Georgism Single Tax model on natural resources, not on income, wealth or labor.

> Simply because the government "gave" me services I neither asked for nor consented to does not mean their taking of my labor / money is ceases to be theft

Well, such is the price of citizenship. You certainly are free to exercise your freedom of exit to move to a country where the government behaves otherwise.

This is also a false Argument, as even moving from the US does not absolve you of US Taxation, even if you renounce your citizenship in some cases they take your past, current and future wealth in taxes

This is aside from the fact that is a clear logical fallacy [1]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

It’s actually a clear point- there is no nation on earth without a government that will provide you with services that you will disagree with. There are degrees of disagreement, so people do choose to move to one that fits their comfort level. But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely. Which is ludicrous.

So indeed, you can’t leave- because unless you move to no man’s land and set up your own government, you will always be betrayed by your own principle, no matter what country you live under.

>>But you seem to be making the case that this principle is completely disagreeable, and so you disagree with the social contract completely.

No, I just do not accept the idea that the terms of the "Social Contract" can be changed on the whims of a Majority / democracy, or worse on the whims of an elected officials

I believe in the Lockean principle of natural rights, on which I believe the terms of said social contract are written and are unchangeable

I believe what Authoritarian Democrats and Republicans call the "social contract" is a complete perversion of the concept in order to justify their own unethical power driven political ends.

What you’re disagreeing with is also how every single nation functions. By all means, people can disagree with the specifics of how different governments function, but what you’re describing is something common to every polity. Even despotates claim to rule by a theoretical consent of the oppressed.

> If I come to your home, mow your grass then "tax" your car from you as payment for my services you would still call that theft. and rightly so.

IMO, this is a false equivalence -- governments are uniquely different from other entities.

> This is false thinking, given your clear bias to socialism I can understand why you think that but it never the less false

I don't see how you can say that this is objectively false. It's ok to say you disagree and you see it differently, but just telling someone their opinion is false isn't going to further a constructive dialog.

I suspect our end goals probably align in many ways. I also support a UBI (though I think some forms of welfare may still be required. For example, to assist people who may need help getting access to their UBI, and to provide some mechanisms for collectively bargaining for things like health care if we keep it private.)

>>IMO, this is a false equivalence -- governments are uniquely different from other entities.

This is another difference on our world view. I do not believe they should be. The foundation of the American style of governance is "For the people by the people".

The government is the common organization of individual natural rights. Any legitimate force the government has comes from the common organization of the natural and individual right of self defense. We the people ordain and establish governments to protect our individual rights. As such the common force is to only do what the individuals have the natural and lawful right to do, to protect our rights.

So if it would be unlawful or unethical for me to enter your property, mow your yard and take our car as compensation it should also be unlawful / unethical for the government to do the same

Granting government special powers is how government abuse occurs. Just look at all the police abuse, this occurs because we have given the police immunities, protections and powers not afforded to the general public. This power will, is, and always will be abused by those that hold it

This was the fundamental problem with the Monarch system we revolted from over 250 years ago, and as we granted the government ever increasing levels of power far above what a normal citizen could ever dream of the resulting problems are clear, evident and predictable. Including the resulting Wealth inequality which I can and have made a case is cause by government regulations not by capitalism or lack of regulations