link to original reddit post by /u/9976556
Prior to some social convention, there is no property. In nature, people's right over material things extends only as far as their physical strength. Any power over things beyond brute physical strength is a social extension of your power beyond its natural scope.
The formalized, codified, conventional system of rules determining who owns or controls stuff is a social institution.
If the social institution which extends individuals' power also includes conditions (a requirement to pay taxes) or even limitations (you can only acquire so much wealth), this does not "take" anything from an individual which the individual would have had a right to keep independently of the (taxing, limiting) institution. Prior to the institution, you could only keep what you could defend. The institution gives you more than that - it lets you extend (social) power over things you wouldn't and couldn't have had power over otherwise. As long as the individual is better off than in the natural state (which is very limited in scope), then the extension (even if taxed) is still a net gain for the individual.
If the institution that determines ownership says that after acquiring a certain amount you have to chip in to a general fund, then the taxed amount that you have to chip in isn't yours under the conventions that establish ownership.
Taxation isn't an infringement on a "natural" right - it is a limitation on a positive right.
(I'm not trolling, I'm just interested in how people here view this argument. Happy to have a good faith debate.)