Taxation is not theft

I would like to begin by first thanking my esteemed opponent for the chance to debate this topic. It's been a while since I've done a real political debate and look forward to the exciting exchange of ideas on the subject. On the respective points of natural and societal ownership, I concede that under those definitions specifically, taxation would not be correctly defined as theft. For this debate, my opponent and I will focus on the moral ownership theory of property and whether taxation is theft under its conception. ===Moral Ownership===My opponent is correct in foreseeing that this aspect of ownership will be where the crux of the debate will focus. My opponent's point lies in the idea that the government's forceful taxation of income (along with other various forms of taxation) is simply the result of a voluntary transaction between citizen and government. My opponent argues "the fact that it was the government who printed the money in the first place as part of its monetary system." is the basis of the agreement which entitles the government to a portion of a person's income. If someone accepts these conditions without upholding their end of the deal (under my opponent's conception this would mean not paying taxes) then one is contradicting their agreement and is thus stealing from the government.This is certainly an interesting argument by my opponent, though certainly flawed nonetheless. For one, it would appear my opponent has simply assumed that the State has a legitimate monopolized control of what may be paid in exchange for services. My opponent's cites some sort of "conditions" set, but where were these conditions set explicitly and where did every individual subject to taxation explicitly agree to them? It would appear no such agreement exists and my opponent simply takes this as a given.I predict that in response to this point however, my opponent will cite a social contract or argue that within the State's jurisdiction, citizens are subject to conditions set by it. This approach is seriously flawed though. For instance, the social contract does not have actual existence in reality. There is no contract signed by all members of society in which they agreed to form a State and abide by its rulings. The social contract is only useful as a metaphorical quasi-justification for State power. On citizens being subject to laws within the State's jurisdiction, I would also contest legitimate jurisdiction of the State in the first place. The State is merely an institution which forcefully declares it's sovereignty based on the supposed obligation imposed by the Constitution, which was signed by men hundreds of years ago and thus cannot form the basis of any legitimate obligation on those alive today who had no say in the matter. After all, if I sign my and my progeny's property away to someone, that doesn't actually obligate my progeny to give anyone their property since it was never my place to contract out their property in the first place. Likewise the signers of the Constitution who created the U.S. had no place attempting to sign away the rights of future born people and had no place in creating any legitimate obligation on them based on a contract which they and they only signed.===Coercion Argument===My opponent argues that just because someone doesn't have a good alternative to an action, doesn't mean that the action itself was coerced. I will agree with my opponent as per our definition of wrongful. However, this is not the point when it comes to taxation as coercion. It isn't that there is no libertarian territory free of taxation with a high standard of living. The reasoning is that the State has no moral legitimacy or sovereignty over its alleged territory in the first place and thus when the State demands payment, no one is under legitimate obligation to pay them. Therefore the taking of this payment constitutes theft.My opponent argues that remaining within the United States qualifies as an example of a situation where someone if offered a value in exchange for another value. Just because someone doesn't think they have better options, my opponent argues, doesn't mean that the act is one of coercion. It is simply a sub-par choice for the person in question. Of course I refer my opponent to my previous point. The institution which calls itself the United States government has no legitimate sovereignty over the territory which it claims. As an institution it is based on a document signed by a small group of men who were themselves elected by a minority of the then-existent population over two hundred years ago. Not only did most people alive in the American territories at that point have no say in the matter (women, Native Americans, African Americans, etc.) as they were prohibited from voting for the representatives which decided on ratification but no one born after the signing had any say either. How can this document impose legitimate obligation on anyone other than the ratifiers when they were then only parties to such a contract. The short answer is that it doesn't. My opponent argues for the existence of obligation to the State based on the false and unsupported presupposition that it has legitimate sovereignty over its alleged territory which has not only been unsupported but has been positively shown to be false. The State is an institution made of people like any other and thus must be held accountable to the same standards of contractual obligation as any other institution or person.