What about neither? Taxation is theft. Labor is already optional if you want to survive. In a truly free society, you are free to succeed or fail.
You state, "The ability to say no to an employer provides people the bargaining power and the choice to determine how they work, where they work, for how much and for how long."
This already exists. No one is forcing you to work for anyone, and no one is stopping you from bettering yourself. When you have a desirable skill set, you have bargaining power and are sought after companies. You are essentially proposing that the prospective employee should be able to hold the employer (the people who will PAY you) hostage. That seems completely asinine. Businesses simply wouldn't succeed if employees constantly held them hostage. Employees don't take the risk, employers do, thats why they make the rules.
I recommend reading this next. It's much longer but it's also much more up your alley.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/The%20Libertarian%20Case%20for%20a%20universal%20Basic%20Income.pdf
You lost me at the very title of the paper. Wealth redistribution is only plausible through taxation. Taxation can only be enforced through force. The use of force goes against the NAP - one of the very core fundamentals of Libertarianism. Governments will never be as effective as a truly free market or charities. That paper tried very hard to make something simple very complicated to justify its point.