Assertion: "Taxation is theft". How does the fallacy-free argument address the assertion.

Hi DrBill. Can you perhaps rephrase the question or expand on it a bit? I think I understand what you are asking, but rather be more confident before spending 20 minutes answering the wrong question :)

It was intentionally barren of details or phrasing, so that attack or support would arise from logical analysis of the assertion.  If I say p1...., p2.... and therefore taxation is theft, all I may get is responses to p1 and p2.  I will acknowledge that taxation is necessary for some elements of government and that calling it "theft" is a rhetorical pejorative, but consider it as less pejorative than "robbery" (which substitutes threat of force for subterfuge, though tof is the reality imo).  It is open-ended, but after all, there are questions of God/god on your site.

So I invite analysis to see how the logical responses address the assertion.  I hope it does not immediately devolve into simple Left/Right politics.

Just after I commented, Richard Aberdeen presented an analysis of the type I was hoping for.  

Taxation may be viewed as "theft", but one is left wondering how well a large civilization on earth today would function without any public highways, national parks, schools, emergency, fire or police protection, various food, water and health regulations, air traffic control and, a host of other modern realities currently funded through taxation.

And then again, one is left wondering how well our own modern U.S. society would function without any public hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare and social security.

Just saying. . . 

Thank you.

I disagree. The extent to which it is a weak analogy depends on the extent to which it is like theft (or more appropriately, robbery). If a highwayman came to your door demanding money from you at the end of a gun, it would obviously be robbery. The only difference between this and 'taxation' is that in the next scenario, this guy works for 'the man.' The common robber could also come with a jimmied up a document that claims your consent is not required, because you live in his hood. He could even use some of the money toward projects that benefit you in some way. The only difference between this and a "Constitution" is the extent you which you feel loyal to it.

If you subscribe to certain other arguments and assumptions, it may just be a weak analogy--such as the social contract, a sense of duty toward one's fellow citizens, etc--for you. But there is no genuine difference between the two scenarios, only the things that we may subscribe to that make us feel different about the two. 

Point is, weather or not it is seen as a weak analogy depends on one's perspective of it.

My argument of weak analogy was made in the context of one who recognizes the authority of the state and buys into the theory of the social contract.

In your scenario where one doesn't share that perspective yes the argument of weak analogy breaks down.