Taxation is theft

I would agree the definitions themselves don't prove my claim that taxation is theft if that was all that was presented so let me present a case here. C1: Money earned is the private property of an individual. Money is a tool used in most societies but especially those that are capitalist or capitalist leaning as a substitute for barter or in kind exchange. Money or currency acquired can be used to obtain real or chattel property or to employ services. Therefore, money is tantamount to private property. It is the same as if you acquired goods or services directly though barter or exchange. Legal systems around the world recognize money at private property. Yes, some do not however that does not change the fact that money can be used to obtain property and thus should be treated as property both legally but also and more importantly morally. Basically money is earned or acquired through labor or efforts of the individual. The individual owns his or her body and labor. Therefore, the fruits of said labor are his or her property. For the state to take those fruits by force or threat of force means the state has a higher claim on the individual than that individual does so long as that money was obtained in an ethical manner. That would be slavery at a minimum but more fundamentally it is theft as we will see. C2: Government action requires the initiation of force against individuals We in society have generally been taught from an early age not to initiation force against others, in other words don't hit people or take their stuff. Government necessarily to survive and maintain its dominance requires initiation of force. If compliance with a state is voluntary then it would cease to be a state as it would have no wait to maintain dominance over a territory. Max Weber recognized this in his definition of the state that the state is a monopoly on force. George Washington is also said to have recognized the state as force along with several others. Many would argue that government is not force because of social contract theory. That is the idea that inhabitants of a geographical area consent to be governed by democratic or other citizen participation means. This identifies a question of whether or not humans have a natural right to impose force on other humans? How can a person or group delegate rights they never had morally to a state? Some would argue that we get things in return for taxation. This is analogous to the mob boss giving you protection in exchange for mandatory payments under threat of physical harm. The relationship is not voluntary nor truly mutually beneficial. I would ask my opponent to demonstrate how taxation or any kind of involuntary non-consensual relationship is ethical or moral. C3: Argument for compulsory taxation based on the idea of social contract theory means that taxation is theft. Imagine you moved onto my street and I started cutting your grass every week. At the end of the month, I placed a bill on your door for my grass cutting services. I then show up with a baseball bat to collect on my bill. You explain that you never asked for the services or agreed to pay them, and I explain that you consented to pay for the service simply by being in MY neighborhood. If you don't comply with my billing I will lock you in my closet. I ask how is that scenario any different from taxation? You may say that one would be free to leave the neighborhood(or country) however, in the case of states you would be forced to be subject to similar force in another state in a practical sense. If theft morally unacceptable, which is generally accepted then the concept of taking private property from individuals by a state is also morally unacceptable regardless of the purpose.