Taxation is theft

Con has seemingly put forth not a refutation of the precise notion that taxation is theft but rather a defense of taxation on some form of utilitarian grounds that it benefits society. I will note that con in R2 engaged in rebuttal which was previously reserved for R3. In my argument I did question the ethical nature of taxation based on the fact that I believe it to be theft so in part Con's response in appropriate however, Con did not address the central question. Con asserts that people use public(government) services like roads, public transportation, schools and so on however, I must ask: If a Slave accepts a meal from his master, is he not still a slave? The fact that at a minimum one is forced to accept some government services does not mean that someone consents to them or the forceful taking of their money or property. If you captive by a criminal and take a glass of water from them, you are not consenting to being held. Con lacks the depth of thought in this argument to see that there might be ways of funding things society needs without the theft involved with taxation. Again though, nothing in Con's argument disproves that taxation is theft but rather makes an argument about how taxation can be perceived to be beneficial. Con says "You see that scenario is different because theft implies you get nothing in return" I would ask Con to demonstrate how the definition of theft implies that you get nothing in return. Remember the definition of theft is "the action or crime of stealing" To steal means take another person's property without permission and without intending to return it. If I take your money and part of it pays for a road or school, then I did not return the property in its original form to you. In fact I confiscated it without intent to return the property. Rather, what has been done is the state has stolen that money and converted it to another use that has been accepted as legitimate when in fact if isn't necessarily legitimate due to the social contract having no validity. This is akin to money laundering. This argument is the only thing proposed by Con that attempts to refute the idea that taxation is theft however the argument fails for the reasons I stated. In the end Con goes back to a utilitarian argument for taxation as well as a attempt to justify its morality. Here Con argues that it is ethical and moral to contribute to a society when you benefit from it. Surely it can be argued that you have a duty to contribute to society. I hold this proposed duty might not really exist but that's a topic for another time. Assuming that this duty does exist, Con here fails to see any other method by which that duty can be fulfilled other than the violation of one's property rights by forcible taking of a person's money or property. Con says "We lose sight of the things our taxes go to and I feel have forgotten what it would be like were taxes removed." The problem with this is things that we need can be provided by voluntary interactions between people in the marketplace. We don't need theft to fund or take care of things society needs. Essentially, Con is asking "If we abolish slavery, who will pick the cotton?" The goal is to pick the cotton so society found a way to do it ethically. The broad question really should be: How do we organize society without violence?