"Who decides these morals" is begging the question. It presumes that morality is subjective.

I'd actually argue he's begging the question. He's claimed we don't have the moral right to delegate things he claims we don't have the moral right to do. Circular reasoning at it's finest. No wonder no one can effectively argue his question, it's logical garbage at the outset!

It is objectively true that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally consistent.

I have no idea what you mean by that. As best I can tell you've just stated the equivalent of 2 = 2.

The person engaging in these acts is using their property to deprive another of their property. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that their action is wrong.

Tell that to a culture which doesn't even believe in property. You're making huge assumptions based on... what, exactly? Why do you believe your property is yours? A few thousand years ago your "property" could actually have been a kings.

So you claim morality is objective, and we're supposed to believe that government is immoral because of your specific moral claims... but you haven't shown that morality is objective, nor that your specific moral claims are objectively correct.