Taxation is Theft AND immoral

“Taxation firstly, is carried out only to those who reside in the given area. Tourists, for example, are given the chance to refund their taxes, on the basis that they do not reside in the area. Taxation is carried out only to people who reside in the area.” This does nothing to my case. A gang in control of a few city blocks is no less a gang because they have a specified operational area. “When residing in an area, you agree to that area"s laws, in exchange for protection by that area.” On the Social Contract Re: Immigration: If a Government is illegitimate from the start, no legitimate contracts may be signed with it. My opponent merely assumes that the Government has a de facto right to make contracts regarding living within a general geographic area. The fact that natural-born citizens have not consented shows the illegitimacy of the State. I must ask: Where have I signed a contract to live in this country? Quoting Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason”: “The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. [...] Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not THEN sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? [...] The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution — from an instrument that nobody ever signed — would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication. […] Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. […] The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.” On the Usage of Tax Money A.) If my a priori moral framework holds, naïve consequentialism does not hold, and thus this objection is useless. B.) The idea that benefits from immorality may change its immoral status is absurd. Does my opponent admit that slavery is perfectly moral, given that the money gained from the slaves’ labour “goes towards their benefit”? I doubt as much; even besides my argument against force, moral intuition would not grant us this conclusion.