Actually, the ethically and morally right thing to do would be to respect people's right to keep everything they earn. Good causes should prove they are good causes and be funded voluntarily. Forcing people to fund things causes conflict.
Consequently, society can, consistent with ethics and morality, recognize a right to hold property, and just as consistently recognize exceptions to that right such as for payment of taxes.
I certainly hope you didn't mean "It is therefore consistent with ethics and morality that society can...", which would mean your first paragraph implies there are no moral or ethical limits on what 'society' can do.
Even birds build nests, and magpies defend their children in nests agains humans, too.
This thread is pretty weird. Rayiner isn't saying anything shocking; he's recapitulating political philosophy that most of us learn in high school. It's one thing to debate Rousseau vs. Hobbes, another to act like the concepts of the general will and the state of nature are novel.
The US constitution was written with a point of view: that people have rights, and that those rights are unenumerated. You might think that's rather artificial. But so is government, in general.
This is a thread questioning the intrinsic merit of property rights, and I read your comment as suggesting that the Constitution might somehow refute property rights. It clearly does not.
Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina....The admission of slaves into the representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government...
Mark Zuckerberg didn't create the Internet, Bill Gates didn't create the computer, IBM didn't create electricity, most land owners don't create the rising value of their land (especially true when it comes to urbanization)
If you want to keep 100% of what you earn you must find a way to be 100% responsible for what you produce.
That will be hard.
I.e. two platforms that made it possible for them to build their businesses on.
Another problem with volunteering is half the population is below median and most of the world's population is pretty stupid and live outside organized society, indicating a voluntary society would only be sustainable if participant IQs were limited to perhaps 120+. People who are proven to have poor time preference or inability to socialized in a civilized manner can't be relied on to volunteer appropriately and need the gun and whip to behave appropriately, including ethical and moral "volunteering". So you end up with a clone of the existing system where smart enough people can cheat the system if they are unethical enough, or if they feel the system is unethical enough. Cheaper and simpler to leave the system alone than to rebuild it ending up in the same place anyway.
Given that, it should always be possible to opt out and go full Amish WRT refusal to fund the "real education system" or whatever... however note that even they have more or less non-optional tithing which is an income tax by another name.
Your second paragraph is an excellent argument against democracy.
If you want to keep everything to yourself without giving anything back then go live in the middle of the rainforest. Let's see how rich you get without the wealth that other people created around you in order to be able feed your own wealth.