My creation is more valuable than the materials clearly.

But deciding on what exchange for my labor and knowledge for your and Daves right to the materials is equitable to all parties is up to negotiation and all parties should live up to their agreements.

If the resource is limited assuming ownership because I found it first leads to squatting and wasted opportunity assuming I grab up resources that you or Dave could have used to build your own houses.

If the resource is plentiful there is nothing stopping you from building your own house unless I were to say you and Dave are not allowed to enrich yourselves by imitating my efforts that also seems unfair of me.

A system that creates perpetual indebtedness of one party to another party with no avenue for parity is slavery. I don't imagine I need to explain why slavery is unfair.

I don't have “faith in government as the answer”. I am just realistic enough to know that private charity absolutely would not replace the level of assistance provided by government today. Without government programs and transfer payments, we'd have shanty town favelas like Brazil does (actually, probably worse, since Brazil's favela-dwellers have generations of experience in jury-rigging electricity, and don't have to deal with harsh winters).

Of course there'd be a void, but that void was created by years of gov't crowd out. If the USPS went away tomorrow, there'd be a void in rural delivery.

But guess what? It'd be filled relatively quickly by the private sector. Were UPS and Fedex to go dark tomorrow, how quickly and efficiently do you believe that void would be filled?

Again, your faith in government as the answer is a result of conditioning, not “reality.”

To answer the question; the question is wrong! The objective of our founders and society was not to create “equality of result”, it was to create an open society in which individuals were free to create, succeed, and build. Accordingly, the amount of any tax levied on any entitie(s) success should never exceed an amount necessary to ensure the continuance/stability of the existing infrastructure, (think both tangible and intangible) which was necessary for and or facilitated this success (caveat below). Society and structure are the key to “allowing” those who can produce and innovate to do so and provide a solid base upon which each generation may build, ideally improving their own lives, as well as the lives of the generations to come. As individuals, we are collectively no more intelligent than the population of the world a few thousand years ago, the difference is that as a whole, we gradually learned to collect and build upon an immense knowledge base, create sustainable structure, divide labor and create the opportunity for specialists to flourish and collaborate to achieve goals on many scales. The result, we have eliminated or inhibited many crucial barriers to success for our greatest minds and society has benefited accordingly. Continued advancement is predicated upon the continuance of a similar form of structure and base need stability.
With that said, when the tax exceeds the amount required to keep the system moving in the right direction and the surplus is misappropriated to poor “investments” in our future advancement, such as the use of funds to create and/or support the existence of a non-producing, dependant class of otherwise capable individuals, then we have a problem, as we are leaving resources (albeit our worst resources) idle and creating a non-sustainable segment of our system that actually possesses the very real potential to negatively impact our efforts towards productivity and advancement in our other segments. While, to an extent, it is our recent technological advancement (primarily in the areas of automation and mechanization) that has helped create this class (once utilized as general laborers), they too must adapt to fulfill new productive roles. Thus, I see the extent of our obligation at the “temporary” provision of the knowledge, structure, and basic needs necessary to facilitate the transition. The current policy of class placation as a means of avoiding this inevitable necessity is logically flawed and non-sustainable. The caveat, cited above, is that it is in our basic interests to ensure that our assets are productively employed. Accordingly, slowly stripping idle assets from those who fail to utilize and/or protect them and deploying them elsewhere benefits our interests. Along those lines, tax may also serve to keep those who can produce from prematurely ending their productivity (retiring), as it is even worse to leave this asset idle than any asset in the dependant class, a practice that is beneficial and sustainable as long as the proceeds are transformed into the prize for the future winners and not squandered on non-performing assets.
What happens when a single hot woman lands on the island?:)

From John Ratzenberger, (Cliffy from Cheers):

Here's some more from John Ratzenberger's remarks at Brown rally earlier:

This isn't the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the party of Woodstock hippies. I was at Woodstock — I built the stage. And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie.”

We are still “private donors” to the government, so to make the assertion that the funds would not be there is cynically calculating that the charitable impulse would disappear were it not for the hand of the State.

Sorry, not the world I live in.