Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

Why? Because it's "legalized"?Not just that. Taxation requires implied and informed consent. Theft omits both.I'm sure I can pull up just as many definitions of theft they say nothing of law as you can referring to law.So can I. But, this seems somewhat irrelevant because it's not the referring to its illegality, but the omission of consent that makes it theft and distinguishes theft from, for example, a loan or taxation. You can argue that one is more "moral" than the other until you're blue in the face (well, maybe not you per say) but the act is the same and I'm all for calling a spade a spade.I've never once made a moral argument in this debate. So I don't see why I would start now or why you're bringing the initial point up. But a tax and theft are two different thingsDefine taxation (in your own words).A levied charge on human activity i.e. a poll tax, that is charged in exchange for the ability to vote. Note the word "threat". ;)It was. "Threat" of force, for example, is redundant, since force sociopolitically (and legally) refers to power that is exerted in order to make some thing happen. You assume taxation is needed. This is NOT true. No, I don't. And the video you linked makes a fairly shallow argument for the "superiority" of private ownership, particularly when it comes to roads, and the author's argument of ought-to-is in terms of efficiency when it comes to schools - it's a very Randian argument that does not follow (see followup below).(for instance, the author of the video omits the fact that the number of companies required to privatize roads would vary depending on the size of the city and the cost of the land to construct and maintain those roads. The amount being paid to each company would also vary disproportionally with no guaranteed increase in utils. Moreover, the cost of use is assumed to be equivalent to the tax-amount and provided as if you'd only be paying it once, instead of every month or every use of the service. So you could arguably (as demonstrated by toll-roads) have to pay $100 every time you use a road to no necessary increase in utils, depending on how much traffic the road sees as well as the particular owning company's cost of maintenance.)(Also, the fact that a private school, in the author's example, would have to be roughly twice as efficient (I'm not sure what that means in education) as a public school to justify its cost of service (being an order of magnitude higher than a public school) does not mean that the service is more efficient than that of a public school.)I have a pretty good feeling that if the threat of not paying taxes went from jail time/ being murdered to nothing, a lot less people would be paying taxes....Well, "being murdered" is a little extreme, since not paying taxes isn't a capital offense. And murder is an illegal action, not a legal one. Please stop conflating legal and illegal activity.I've yet to meet a person whom likes paying taxes and if taxes were not mandatory it would only be a few years at most until everyone stopped paying them. It's not about liking it.I'd like to see just how much everyone agrees to taxation when there are no guns in the room.We could make this same argument for almost any legal issue.