Your definition is a narrow one defining only "unlawful" acquisition as theft.
People who make up a 'government' writing on a piece of paper that their theft is 'not theft' doesn't make it not theft.
Nor does the absence of a government mean there is no such thing as theft.



People can inhabit territory.
A name for a type of group of people doesn't mean some people rightfully claim ownership over others, or over all the land.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 30 2020 09:39pm

Would "illicit" make you happier than "unlawful"?

libertarians really are the flat-earthers of politics...

Yes wanting more liberty is exactly like being a flat earther.

Another great anti-intellectual brainstorm from sub-80 HG

No.

"Bad man take thing"

Is this a better definition of theft?

Better? yes.

Is this an acceptable point from which to continue our discourse?

You can see where that gets you, sure.

But if 'government is good so its not theft according to that definition' is the next line of argumentation i'm going to laugh.

I defined theft in another post using google's definitions.

If I can avoid being stolen from doesn't matter. I agree. Which is why if I can avoid paying rent doesn't mean rent or having to pay for a house if I want to live in a house isn't theft. Glad we agree.