Taxation is theft

1)Pro says that the implied social contract "is not offered to citizens at all" and that people consent "simply by being born in a specific region". Let me reiterate what I said before: the government offers the contract when they offer public resources and the governed accept through their use of said resources. Use of these resources would override "actual words of explicit dissent". Let us use yet another analogy to consider whether implicit consent based on accepting services overrides explicit dissent:A man and a woman are in a bar. The man offers the woman a drink (a non-essential service) which she accepts (implicit consent established). If the man now attempts to have sex with the woman despite her explicit words of dissent, would he be justified in light of the implicit contract between them and would it be consentual? Lets assume that in this scenario the woman knew that the man would attempt this and had the chance to leave, but chose not to for some reason. Another interesting point to make is what exactly does the contract allow the state to do? Any action the state would take, no matter how atrocious, would presumably be consentual on part of the governed, and therefor justified, given that they accept services provided and are capable of leaving the country. „2)These public resources are not necessary to survive, like the kidnapper's meal is, nor is the tax payer held against their will inside the country. I earlier defined an implied contract as one in which one party knowledgeably accepts a benefit when it is possible to reject it. Pro seems to dispute that it is possible to reject public resources, but that is incorrect; it is very much possible to live your life without using resources from a particular government. “The fact that the meal is necessary to survive was not the point of the analogy. The point was that one does not consent to something just by accepting services provided. You could of course simply change the analogy a bit and replace“meal“ with any non-essential thing. Access to the victims favorite book for example. Would accepting the book, a clearly non-essential service, constitute consent on the victims part to being kidnapped? This would of course mean that no kidnapping had taken place and the „victim“ is a willing participant. It was never said that it‘s impossible to reject public resources. It is indeed possible, but comes at the cost of a significantly lower standard of living. Not being able to use roads would make one's life quite difficult. Regarding con‘s point that the victim is not able to leave, while the taxpayer is: The point of the analogy is that the victim is forced to do something in the same way that the taxpayer is forced to do something, regardless of their explicit dissent. „Education is completely relevant in terms of where consent can be established. Pro has taken my point regarding education out of context and their example of assault fails because the victim only knows about assault. Again, my earlier definition of implied consent required not only knowledge, but knowledgeable acceptance of a benefit. An assault victim does not tacitly accept a benefit, therefore there is not implied consent. “I fail to see how the point was taken out of context. Regardless, now that all the conditions for what constitutes this implied contract have been made clear, a more apt analogy can be constructed as can be seen in the first point. „3)Pro's third point appears to solidify previous implications (e. g. , comparisons to kidnapping, assault, sexual slavery) that taxes are not only theft, but morally reprehensible. The reason that the "victim blaming" the pro attributes to the tax system would not be considered legitimate in any other scenario is that tax payers do not consider themselves victims. There has never been a time in history where the majority Americans thought they were paying an unfair amount income taxes(1). Regardless, supposed "victim blaming" and morality as a whole are irrelevant in the context of this debate, which is why I have done my best to avoid those topics. “The point of the analogies was not that taxation is morally reprehensible, although that could certainly be discussed in another debate, but rather that it is non-consentual in the same way that assault, kidnapping, etc. are. Tax payers do not consider themselves victims because they have never experienced not being a tax payer. People are much more likely to be content with the status quo when they have never experienced an alternative. This does not demonstrate consent but rather shows the social conditioning that people have gone through. Of course, if it is the case that taxation is theft, then any amount of taxation is unjust regardless of what percentage of Americans thinks otherwise. Premise 1 of the syllogism presented in round 2 has, in my opinion, been succesfully defended. It should therefor be concluded that taxation is indeed theft and so the resolution has been affirmed.