Taxation is both theft and immoral

I'll quickly address the two important points that the opponent has argued to legitamize his position, then I'll finish up by explaining the implication of the truth on these two issues. The two issues at hand regard the nature of law and the nature of morality.The LawMy opponent claims I have made the "assumption that governmental decrees make the law" and goes onto talk about a fundamental or "natural law". On the first, I'll simply say that I did not claim that governmental decrees "make the law", but rather referred to the "governmental decrees" as "laws". You can essentially replace every instance of the word "law" in my argument with "governmental decree" as I was not trying to imply some "rightness" or justification for these laws. Rather, I was explaining that "theft" is defined as a particular offense that breaks the law. I made the assumption that "the law" in the definition referred to governmental decree, since that is the only "law" we live under in the US. This is where the opponent's second argument comes in -- as he claims there is a different, more fundemental kind of law. Natural LawIn order to justify the existence of this "natural law", he quotes a person claiming that this law does exist. The person in question argues that this law comes from God, but does not in any further way attempt to justify the existence of this law. Rather, he attempts to explain what this law is, in his view. I contend that there is not ample enough evidence to claim that God exists, so by extension it cannot be said that this "natural law" exists in any meaningful way. It is absolutely clear, however, that "governmental decrees" or governmental law does exist. My opponent further discusses the implications of "bad laws", like slavery, claiming that I cannot say these governmental laws are just. And he is absolutely correct -- I never claimed that governmental law was just. It does not need to be for me to prove my point. I merely need to prove that the definition of "theft" means taking another's property in an unlawful way. The actual "justness" of the laws in question do not matter. If the Great Principality of Q'sar decided that the government owned the air and that taking this property of the government was not legal, then all people in that country who breathed would be comitting theft. Whether this is "fair" or "right" is of no concern to the resolution, as we are not (in this point) discussing morality, but rather definitions. To summarize, as far as laws are concerned, in the US it can be said that only one law objectively exists, with no other laws having objective and proveable existence in the jurisdiction of the US. The definition of "theft" specifically references the law, so something is theft if and only if it is done so in a way that is against the law. Again, it is irrelevant as to whether this is seen as "fair". The opponent's second premise falls as a result of the first falling. "Consent" is an irrelevant part of the equation when it concerns the taking of one's property in a manner consistent with the law. MoralityThe most important thing to address is the opponent's supposed proof that morality is objective, as this directly clashes with my contention that it is not. Let's look at this argument:1. For subjectivism to be true, agent X must be able to "freely advocate" action Y being done to agent Z. 2. This must hold true for agent Z advocating action Y on agent X.3. If action Y involves stripping the power to freely perform actions from it's target, this results in a contradiction: If agent X advocates and action which, if directed to him, would deprive him the abiity to advocate that action, he is debasing his ability to make such a choice at all. The wordiness of this argument disguises the fact that it is incomplete and innaccurate. Allow me to reword the argument:1. For subjectivism to be true, Bob has to be able to want to enslave Craig. 2. Craig must also have to be able to want to enslave Bob.3. If Craig's enslavery of Bob removes Bob's ability to want to enslave Craig, then that makes Bob inable to want to enslave Craig.When we replace "freely advocate" with "want" it becomes clear that this argument does not correctly conclude that subjectivism isn't possible. Agent X's desire to do some action is the not same as X's ability to do that action. Removing X's ability to do something does not necessitate the removal of X's desire to do that thing. Furthermore, subjectivism contends that morality does not exist objectively, such that actors X and Z could have fundementally different moral systems. Just because action Y may be offensive or undesirable to both parties does not mean Y is wrong simply because it is wrong in both systems. Additionally, man moral beliefs indicate that an action is "ok" to do to someone else, but that it is not ok for it to be done to that agent. Ie, person X might believe "it is ok for me to shoot Bob, but it is not ok for Bob to shoot me". This is a logically valid belief without contradiction, as subjectivism does not require agents to judge the validity of action Y from a universal standpoint, but merely their own.As such, the opponent has failed to demonstrate that morality is objective. As a result of this, it cannot be meaningfully said that anything is universally moral or immoral in an objective way. General Arguments (The Opponent's)ConsentI've already demonstrated that the definition of theft does not always require the exchange of property to be consensual and that "consent" cannot be said to be universally good or bad due to the non-existence of objective moral absolutes. As such, consent is irrelevant to the resolution at hand. If we had entered this argument with the assumption that an absolute morality existed, then a great conversation could be had over whether consent is objectively good or bad. Unfortunately for the opponent, that is not the framework in which we entered this discussion.The Utility of Government CoercionThe opponent begins the argument with "if my claims about morality hold true...", which should make it clear what I'm about to say. I've demonstrated that the opponent's "proof" of objective morality was not correct, meaning that the opponent's claims regarding morality have not been found to hold true. As such, the discussion on "pragmatism" vs "the nature of force" is not one that is central to upholding my position, so I wil not waste the voters' time on it.A Note on my "extra arguments"I included a few extra arguments regarding the pragmatism of taxation in order to dispell the notion that taxation was in some way "draconian" like slavery. However, I feel it is unnecessary to continue to uphold them as the scope of my argument does not require their existence. ConclusionI have demonstrated that theft is a word with a clear definition and that this definition compares the action to the law. I've shown that the only law we know exists it governmental decree and that the opponent's assertion that natural law exists is unfounded and unproven. In this, I've demonstrated that taxation is not theft.I've furthermore shown my opponent's logical argument for the existence of an objective morality to be flawed, negating his claim that taxation can be universally and objectively immoral. In both of these points I have upheld my end of the resolution and negated the opponent's. He must defeat both of these points to be considered to be upholding his end of the resolution. I look forward to the opponent's response.