Oh but it does belong to the government. Everything does, even your life.

I don't know if i'd say that, although, the government certainly does have significant control over those being governed.

It is not theft, it is the cost of living in society.

This argument makes no sense. In order to live in a society, one must pay arbitrary dues to a group of people who call themselves government?

one of which is by its very nature illegal,

Theft is not illegal by its very nature as legality is based on an arbitrary set of rules.

Taxation is societal dues. If you want to live in a society, you must contribute to it.

Again, this argument makes no sense. There is absolutely no reason why someone should have to pay arbitrary dues to some group of people demanding that you do. People should pay for the commodities and services used within a society, yes. However, paying to a third party is illogical and immoral as you are also unwillingly paying for things that you don't want. Not only is this irrational, but it's also economically inefficient as this third party will take most of your money and spend it for it's own self-interests.

Any creationist is someone who clearly cannot think for themselves. Any devout creationist should be considered an idiot by any standard.

Sure, it's unavoidable that you will have to use some things in a given society, however, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we should then only pay for those certain things that we use? In your former argument you considered ceasing to use a single tax payer service that you are paying for to be theft. By this standard, anyone who is not using every service the government provides, anyone who isn't using any single service that their money is being used for is therefore being stolen from by the government. Do you agree?

I mean, we are talking about crime here... come now!

No, we're not talking about a crime. Just because certain forms of theft are lawfully considered crimes does not mean this debate is concerned with the nature of crime. We are talking about an action, the act of taking what does not belong to you, thus we are talking about the act of theft. Again, legality is irrelevant to this debate.

I never asked for your opinion on what a person who does not wish to pay taxes should do; another irrelevant argument. Try giving me an argument for why taxation is not theft, one that does not have to do with legality.

When did legality become relevant to this debate? This is concerning theft not legality, try to stay on topic here.

he is still taking what doesn't belong to him from the person to whom it does supposedly belong. It remains a selfish act even were he to give all of it to charity.

So if you say taking what does not belong to someone is a selfish act regardless of where that money goes to, and if you agree that those standards are what defines theft, then you evidently agree that taxation is theft by acknowledging that taxation is not voluntarily and is therefore taken from the taxpayer. Your words not mine.

Just as the government takes from the person to whom it belongs to. So you agree that taxation is theft, glad we agree.

Okay so if someone were to steal money from you and give, say, 20% of that money back, would this theft then be justified?

Theft is that act of taking something from someone without that someone's approval. If I do not approve of giving my money to some entity that calls itself government and they coerce me into giving it to them anyways, I am being stolen from, thus theft is occurring.

So would theft then be justified if the thief were to give say 15% of that money back to the government?

Is it even possible to opt out of single taxpayer funded services though? Because I am implicitly forced to use govt. funded commodities like roads to get around places, my giving money to this entity is now justified? Is it okay for a group of thugs to demand I give them some of my money and use some of this money to buy a commodity which they then force me to use, while claiming that the continuation of my giving them money for use of their commodity, is now justified?

Okay, another irrelevant comment. I'm not working hard to believe that the religion, much less Christianity is bullshit at all. It's pretty clear that the your entire bible is just as nonsensical as any other fictitious story, like Harry Potter for example. The only one working hard here is you. You try to deceive yourself from your own empirical senses by imagining that your idol is actually speaking to you, it's so funny because people like you can't even realize how completely absurd that is. You are a fool; an absolutely crazy, brain-dead, indoctrinated fool.

Okay, so you have a religious bias, which influences your entire argument. There is no point in having a rational debate about this, then.

chronic welfare recipients mentioned here.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html

My argument was never whether the socialist or anti-socialist model would produce a more intelligent populace. It was that a more intelligent (competent) populace would have less of a dependence upon a statist ruler, thus less coercion would necessitate.

Less intelligent people are, statistically, chronic welfare recipients, and favor socialist programs which are inherently coercive.

It's not really a utopia, just minimal coercion and statism that I advocate.

Not sure I understand...

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-sperm-alive

Sperm are alive. So you are against condoms, and ejaculation?

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-sperm-alive

Sperm are alive too. Therefore, there are people with rights?

I'll respond to what I think is your strongest point here, the last one. It's true that hypocrisy arises with mandating anything after criticizing coercion, however, in a state where coercion is inevitable, I think that sterilizing the incompetent would not only better humanity, but it would also lead to a drastic decrease of coercion in total. In time, masses of competent human beings would constitute the nation; I would think that there would be very little need for a statist ruler of any kind during this situation. This is the goal if you're against coercion correct?

In areas where there are not enough resources to satisfy the current population. Also, perhaps people who have low chances of conceiving a person who will be competent, or in other words, with at least a decent enough intelligence to take care of himself/herself and contribute to society. This way, we won't have masses of people dependent upon the state, along with all the coercive madates these people force upon everyone else.

Your vasectomy argument is irrelevant because those sperms are not yet people, unlike embryos.

Your pro-life argument is irrelevant because embryos are not yet people.

So are you against condoms and birth control medication as well? They also oppose the development of "pre-born babies".

I don't know, it's the default picture I was given when I made an account here. I'm confused about why you replied to my argument months later and why you replied with an irrelevant comment.

Can you provide a study of some kind showing that reading has a more significant dependence on genetics rather than simply practicing it?

Meat eaters don't care for logic and reasoning when it contradicts their shitty diets. Their number one most used argument against veganism: bacon.

I implied that Muslims believing in the Quran is just as nonsensical as Christians believing in the holy bible when I said "it is not any more true than believing in any other religion". I thought that was pretty self-evident.