Wrong again. But while it's true that theft need not be carried out by force, it is still immoral if done via fraud or deception or implied consent. By the way, government is also committing theft by deception in regards to debauching the fiat currency. The dollar has constantly lost value since the institution of the Federal Reserve.

And 4Liberty is right. It is your definition that needs clarity. Do a little research on crimes committed under color of law.

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Citizen's Savings & Loan Assn v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664

"To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent where no consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did not, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he does not desire it, or does not bargain for it, the government has no more right, than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it." - Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury"

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer