Another straw man argument.
Who is arguing that the government cannot or should not impose taxes on the citizenry? Who is arguing that there is no duty upon a member of share in the costs of keeping society together?
The difference between you and Baldimo and Chai (among others) is that you believe in far less restraint on the government's power to tax than they do. To suggest that either of them is arguing against the existence of government or even it's legitimate power to impose taxes is absurd.
American society only "allows" people to obtain wealth in the sense that it provides a framework in which the process can occur. It does not "allow" in the sense that it grants permission, which can at anytime be taken away. This latter use is much more in keeping with your way of thinking about society, and more specifically, government.
It is possible, you know, for reasonable people to disagree on the scope of the government's function, how much money it requires to carry out that function, and what are the fair and legitimate means for it to obtain that money. The rules which create an environment where people are "allowed" to prosper apply to the government as well as the governed. In this nation, at least, we have a constitutions that gives permission
to the government to govern and that permission is not without limitations.
By your argument too, everyone who benefits from society should be required to contribute to it maintenance, so do you believe that everyone should be taxed, in a manner in which they actually pay something, on whatever income they have?
And before you go there, it is also possible for reasonable people to disagree on the extent to which society is responsible for people who cannot take care of themselves and how to define who these people are. Because someone doesn't share your notion of the extent to which the government should redistribute wealth doesn't mean they are heartless Social Darwinists, as much as calling them such things help you to feel morally superior.