Statists claim that the property norms of first use and consensual exchange would lead to trespass, theft and violence absent a group of individuals with a territorial monopoly on trespass, theft and violence. In other words... "WE NEED CHAOS TO PREVENT CHAOS!!!" This logically incoherent contradiction in terms is so infamous and widely used that it deserves to have a fallacy named after it. One part appeal to consequence, one part appeal to incredulity, one part modal scope fallacy, one part performative contradiction; one hundred percent fallacious - I dub thee "Argumentum Mad Maximus".
If the inherent contradiction in terms and the multiple, baked-in logical fallacies aren't already plainly obvious to you, just try to universalize the aforementioned claim and you'll see how truly ridiculous it is. You don't have to try hard. Just apply the underlying "logic" of it to romantic relationships. Would anyone in their right mind suggest that there needs to be a territorial monopoly on rape which forces people to have sex in the name of preventing rape? Absolutely not. Such a person would be dismissed as irrational and incoherent, or even regarded as emotionally and psychologically unstable, not to mention potentially dangerous. In any case, they would not be taken seriously by anyone and would even be physically separated from others if they proactively acted on what they claim to believe.
"Consent" isn't just for romantic or physical relationships, though; it's the categorical imperative of all moral acts and the property norms of first use and consensual exchange from which morality arises. To claim that consensual exchange leads to theft is as ridiculous as saying that consensual sex leads to rape, especially when the proposed solution is to do the exact thing you claim to want to prevent.