Taxation is both theft and immoral

I'll start with the opponent's first argument, move on to his second, then end with some points that generalize to both arguments. Argument 1: TheftPremise One: The opponent opens with a premise that describes theft as "initiated forced aimed at revoking one's right of ownership over something without consent and granting a new right of ownership to the the thief." While this premise is near that actual definition of "theft", it overextends in some directions as well as fails to include some circumstances. Merriam-Websters defines "theft" as: "the felonious taking and removing of property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it; an unlawful taking of property." You'll note that both definitional clauses use terms that directly relate theft to law ("felonious" and "unlawful") This is because theft is legal term that has resulted from the existance of law in the first place. Because of this, the opponent's definition overreaches. The issue at hand is a fantastic example of how the opponent's definition would consider an act theft whereas the dictionary definition would not. Taxation is a legal process prescribed not just by law -- but by the Constitution of the United States. (I am assuming the opponent is American.) Because of this, so long as taxes are collected in a way that agrees with the law, taxation would not be considered theft. This is specifically because the transfer of property ownership is decreed by law.Premise Two: The opponent's second premise is a direct result of the first -- in claiming that taxation is theft. Because the opponent was using an arbitrarily created definition of "theft" instead of a dictionary definition, he was able to come to this conclusion. When we stop and consider the actual definition of "theft", however, it is clear that it cannot be said that taxation is theft. The opponent falsely asserts that "for an act to not be theft ... that act [must] be done with the consent of all involved". This claim has no warrant, however, and is not consistent with the definition of theft. All parties do not need to consent to the transfer of property if this transfer is done in a legally prescribed manner. Consider an instance in which a company creates a faulty product that injures a customer. That customer can sue the company and, if they win, the court can demand that the company pay damages to the customer. It does not matter whether the company actually desires for this to happen because they are part of a legal system in which such payment was prescribed. The same goes for taxation. If a person fails to pay taxes and are jailed as a result, this is not indicative of some injustice done to the person in question. It is, again, the legal prescription for what to do if a person does not pay the taxes they are legally required to pay.Conclusion One: Understanding the definition allows us to clearly see that taxation cannot be viewed as theft under any governance which legally requires taxes. Do not allow the opponent's arbitrary definition of "theft" to hold more weight than the dictionary definition. I too could modify the definition of resolutional terms to win any debate I wished -- but doing this destroys the education part of debate, which is largely debate's purpose. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Argument 2: ImmoralityPremise One: The opponent here claims that the initiation of force is always (without qualifiers) immoral. There are a few things to note here, which will be covered by looking at the axioms proposed by the opponent. Axiom One: "Humans are able to purposefully act." This is true.Axiom Two: "Morality determines the proper acts and aims of moral agents." Here the opponent is begging the question by describing "morality" as essentially "morality". In other words, he claims that morality is when moral agents behave in a "proper" fashion -- but the term "proper" is in and of itself a word that is synonymous with morality. Because of this, the opponent has failed to actually define morality. In light of this fact, it is impossible to effectively argue that something is moral when you have failed to even demonstrate what it means to be moral. I contend that there is no objective morality. In other words, there is no "true and objective" means of determining whether an act is "right" or "wrong". It is furthermore the likely case that actions in and of themselves are not inherently right or wrong.If one claims that objective morality comes from an objectice moral authority, they are resting on the unproveable assumption that a) this authority exists and that b) this authority is an objective moral authority. The more reasonable understanding of morality is that it exists on a subjective basis. Each man and woman feels in his soul that certain things are wrong and certain things are right. This proves to be useful in self-governing behaviors. However, due to the nature of this subjective reality, it cannot be generalized to actions that affect large amounts of people. If X% of people believe theft is moral and Y% of people believe it is not, we are not left with any clear indicator of whether the action is or is not moral. Furthermore, you can't claim that "whatever the most people believe regarding the morality of Z is what is actually moral", for you can simply remove enough people from the equation such that the action suddenly "changes" in morality status despite being the same exact action. Conclusion Two: Because morality does not exist in an objective sense, it is impossible to make moral judgements regarding actions that affect large amounts of people. An objective morality cannot just be "assumed" to exist, but instead demands proof of its existence if we are to follow it. Because of the previously mentioned facts, it cannot be said that taxation is immoral. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General Arguments1. People are not technically required to pay taxes.I am not saying that people can "choose" to not pay taxes and then go to jail, as that is hardly a choice. Instead, I am saying that a person is free to simply leave the country in which they are being taxed. A legal and social contract binds all citizens who choose to be a part of a country. If one does not wish to pay taxes, one can leave the country. While this may seem "unfair", the fact is that the government provides many utilities that you cannot help but use. You are using what belongs to the government, so it is not an unreasonable expectation that you should be legally obligated to pay for these services. What's more, the government (in the US at least) reflects the will of the people, as it is effectively run by representatives of the people who were fairly elected into office. If "the people" largely wanted to reduce government expenditure, one would see a decrease in the services the government provides along with the reduction of taxes that goes along with this. This point is largely irrelevant, as I've already demonstrated that a person's freedom to pay or not pay taxes is irrelevant to the definition of theft. It does, however, contend the opponent's claim that people do not have a choice in the matter. 2. Taxes are critical to a working government, which provides many services all people use.To expand on the latter part of the previous point -- governments cannot be effectively run without compulsory taxation. This is, again, fairly irrelevant to the discussion, as I've already demonstrated taxes to not be theft. It is still important to mention, however, because one must realize that taxation is not some draconian practice, but is instead integral to the functioning of society. The US government provides roadways, energy, water, railways, defense, schools, parks and compensation to its own employees, as well as many services for the less fortunate in society. While the latter perks only apply to certain members of society, the former ones have been used by virtually every citizen in the United States. It is impossible to live in the US and not take advantage of many of these services. A government which chose not to collect compulsory taxes would not exist for long, as there would be no real motivation to give the government money, despite what the government offers. There cannot be a doubt that society is better off because of the existence of governments. They don't just provide the services previous mentioned, but also order.Because of this, one cannot even argue that taxes are "bad" in a logical way, as they provide significantly more than they take. They are literally one of the pillars upon which the healthy functioning of society rests upon. Pull it away and everything will fall. ConclusionI have demonstrated that the opponent used a "made up" definition for theft. Whenever looking at the "real" definition, we see that taxation cannot be considered theft, as theft is an inherently illegal process, while taxation is not. Furthermore, I've described why there is no reason to believe an objective morality exists and that a subjective morality cannot consistently describe the moral nature of taxation. Lastly, I stated some facts regarding the "common sense" of taxes and how they are beneficial to society. This was to demonstrate that taxation was not some draconian practice that needs to be eliminated, but is instead a critical and necessary piece of any functioning government. I look forward to the opponent's response.