Well, a proof cannot be made.
Neither for your case or any other.

We have to agree on many definitions.

The not "taxation is theft"

Given a group of people, that decide that some infrastructure should be built, at the expense of all those included then it is not theft.

However, that was an agreement, before the event, about a certain thing.
Today, the same thing is done, but with many just assuming.

Assuming you are here, you help pay for the infrastructure.
And not assuming that leads to lots of problems like, people not paying their fair share.

Assuming you want the infrastructure.
Its just a given that you want roads.
You, of course, want trucks to deliver food to the grocery stores, right?

Assuming that the govern-cement officials are your representative on the infrastructure building a maintenance.

Soooo, according to our current law, if you have not challenged the assumptions, then you have given up your right of complaint, and are now bound to the "social contract" to pay your fair share as prescribed in the tax code.

Of course we could go back to the old way of things.
You are walking across our property. (real estate - the king's estate) And if you want to come across then you will hand over 10% of the commodities you are bringing across.