link to original reddit post by /u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass
I've heard this a few times and want to run down what I think is the best argument against this. I've heard people get stuck on arguing whether the state creates property rights or are inherent. I've done that too. This is a red herring.
Suppose there are no property rights. Then there wouldn't be anything wrong with the state taking the property from you, as there conceivably wouldn't be wrong with anyone taking any property from anyone.
However, there also wouldn't be anything wrong with refusing to surrender your property, since the property isn't rightfully the state's either. In order for it to be the state's, there would have to be property rights. The state can't manage to do this without political authority since property rights are allegedly rights no one else has. Here you can walk down all the reasons that political authority doesn't exist.
In the case where neither is wrong, we're at a standstill. There's nothing wrong with the state taking it and nothing wrong with the individual refusing to surrender it. However, the state is still wrong to punish or threaten to punish you. If it isn't wrong to refuse to surrender your property, why would it be okay for them to punish you for it?
Edit: typo