Which "scarce natural resources" in particular are we talking about?
Pro-government, pro-taxation arguments that put government needs first inevitably devolve onto government as a religion, and high taxes as its catechism. The end game of that approach is to simply take everything from anybody earning any income or making any kind of transaction; this, of course, is what we used to call feudalism, and chasing that off was one of the side effects of the Enlightenment. The idealists who claim, with a straight face, that this is not so will never tell you just where their plans should end or how much is "fair", just more than is currently being collected. So grows the State, and their mad plans for running things on somebody else's nickel, coin they didn't have to earn.
The scarce natural resources would be land, labor, and entrepreneurial ability. I'm not sure why you've chosen to try and devolve this conversation towards the condescending but it has no place here. I will ignore your rant of a history lesson, but I do not appreciate your ctone and it will stop for this conversation to continue. I have absolutely no problem laying out exactly was I believe is fair in this situation. What's more, it's easily testable. If a reasonable, neutral person were to look at the situation and ask why Company X, which does a similar amount of business in Washington pays Y amount, why does MS get to pay close to nothing? If it's because of some special consideration, is that consideration worth examining further? Are the taxpayers getting a raw deal? Is it so that MS stock holders can get a bigger return?