Surplus labor value must exist in order to make the claim that wage labor is theft. It is a fact that there is no such thing as surplus labor value. It assumes that work is the basis for a market commodity's value, which is false. Individual preferences determine value, hence marginal utility drives market demand. Even if a commodity's value were determined by how much labor went into producing it, whether both sides of the Association agree to a transaction determines whether it is voluntary or not. Therefore, even if labor drives a commodity's value, the business owner making money is not actively stealing by any standard.
Something would need to be coerced in order for it to be forced or non-voluntary. The use of force requires actors. Additionally, there must be both a coerced party and a coercive party in order for there to be coercion. In other words, coercion or anything non-voluntary requires both a coercer and a coercee. It's not optional because the situation is one of labor or perish. Since compulsion requires two people, this would fall short of the standards. Death would be a natural outcome. Since nature is not an agent, it is powerless to exert coercion. In light of everything said, neither the capitalist nor nature can compel you to labor for them. Again, this scenario would fall to meet the requirements of something being non voluntary, and the argument falls apart.
"Additionally, there must be both a coercive party and a coercive party in order for there to be coercion."
I'm guessing that second "coercive" should be "coerced".