Government is immoral

Disclaimer: Personally, I do not think the government is moral. However, given certain assumptions that my opponent makes, I can show that they must concede government is moral. If my opponent would like to debate me on those assumptions after this, namely on property or morality, we could do that. Argument 1a: Property By looking at my opponent's recent debate: “Taxation is theft”, I conclude that my opponent makes the assumption that property is legitimate. Property is grounded on the social contract theory. If a person wishes to own something, like land, that person must create a contract with the rest of the society around him. They must agree that this person has complete ownership, and can or cannot allow whomever he wants. Now, what happens when this person passes down this land to the next generation, and an entirely new generation of people exist. The new generation did not comply to that contract, yet the belief in property requires that every new generation is forced to consent. In order for the protection of property rights to exist past multiple generations, some entity must also exist to protect and ensure those rights. This entity would be the government. Without the entity of the government, the ownership of land could not exceed one generation. Argument 1b: Property Once a government forms, they can seek to expand the nation by acquiring more land. For example, the government of the United States of America owns all of the land in the United States of America. Because the government has property rights, they are then allowed to make laws concerning the people who reside in their land. If property rights exist, it is moral the government to make laws, even laws that require taxation. Just as a landlord has the right to tax and enact policies to those who use his buildings and/or land, so does the government have the same right. If you concede that the government did acquire the land legitimately, then you must concede that the government is moral. If one argues that the government somehow did not acquire the land in a legitimate way, then it necessarily follows that any citizen in that land also acquired the land in an illegitimate way, meaning you have no more or less rights over the land than the government. If my opponent concedes this, then he must either concede that property itself isn't legitimate, or that the majority of humanity immoraly reside in illegitimate land. Argument 2: Morality My opponent makes the claim that the government is immoral. However, in order to prove this, my opponent must then provide and adequate theory of morality that withstands scrutiny. The issue is, though, that all the major theories of morality are plagued by the circular reasoning fallacy and the grounding problem. For example: Utilitarianism argues that what is moral is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This begs the question, what is good for the greatest number? Avoiding pain? But why is pain bad? Because it's not good. See, this is circular reasoning. Secondly, WHY should we do what is good for the greatest number of people. HOW is that something that is ethical? WHY isn't creating the most harm the most ethical solution. If evolution is true, and the most complex species achieved that status by surviving monumental catastrophes, wouldn't that then make pain a good thing? But then, one could as the question: Why is being a complex being a good thing? So, unless my opponent can provide an objective moral theory that withstands scrutiny, he cannot prove that government is immoral. If he does not provide an objective moral theory in which all humanity ought to live by, then he cannot escape moral relativism. If culture decides that government is moral, and almost every culture in human history has decided to create government, then government is good by this standard.