I don't think taxation is definitionally theft. But much of modern taxation is theft, and much of modern state overreach is tyranny. The test is "consent," of course. In any contract, we require unanimous consent. If you install roofs, and I need a roof, we may have some mutually beneficial exchange. But only if we agree on a price, and the agreement is enforced. Of course, we consent to having it enforced, because that makes the agreement possible. If it is a larger activity, a big project, it still takes unanimous consent, from all the participants, or they can exit. That's NOT true, for the most part, in political systems. David Hume was rightly scornful of "tacit consent" ( you use the roads, so you consent to pay taxes, is the modern version). So, if I had to pick yes or no on Taxation is Theft, I'd say "Yes." But in small groups collective fees that look like taxes are NOT theft, provided there is an exit option.
I don't think taxation is definitionally theft. But much of modern taxation is theft, and much of modern state overreach is tyranny. The test is "consent," of course. In any contract, we require unanimous consent. If you install roofs, and I need a roof, we may have some mutually beneficial exchange. But only if we agree on a price, and the agreement is enforced. Of course, we consent to having it enforced, because that makes the agreement possible. If it is a larger activity, a big project, it still takes unanimous consent, from all the participants, or they can exit. That's NOT true, for the most part, in political systems. David Hume was rightly scornful of "tacit consent" ( you use the roads, so you consent to pay taxes, is the modern version). So, if I had to pick yes or no on Taxation is Theft, I'd say "Yes." But in small groups collective fees that look like taxes are NOT theft, provided there is an exit option.