That's pretty arguable. To me, "fair" simply means that we all obey the same rules. Those rules can be anything we want, if we think they'll make society work better. In our current system, taxes are levied on money movement, which serves important functions. These functions include signalling to the economy which activities we'd like to encourage and discourage, and providing fair and proportionate funding to government services which deal with that specific activity. For instance, road tax is levied only on car users, and goes towards the maintenance of the infrastructure which car users disproportionately benefit from. That is much more "fair" than what you are suggesting. When you use terms like "double taxation", you are presupposing that tax is "attached to a person", and that income tax is the only "valid" form of tax, which is a radical departure from how most of the world thinks about tax - a fact you acknowledge.
>It makes no sense for you, as an individual, to compare yourself to a corporation.
I agree with this, but probably not the way that you mean.
Apple isn't even a person. It deserves no consideration of things like "rights" and "personal sovereignty". It's merely an organization - essentially, a pile of paperwork - that exists entirely subordinate to the parameters that we agree on through the engine of representative democracy, which is our current best effort at creating an avatar of societal cooperation, for the benefit of all. Ethically, we would be entirely within our rights to tax Apple at a rate of 100%, if we felt it would be a net benefit to society as a whole.