lol
First of all, the state is not a protector of property rights. The argument that it is is actually contradictual, as Conza88 has showed. The state violates property rights. Where there is a state there is by definition a violation of property rights, the only diffirence between various types of states is the relative degree of violation.
Second, property rights do not need an agency or an institution in order to be enforced. There only must be at least two human individuals, who act and do so in the condition of scarcity.
Yes the state violates property rights, but it also protects them. Police, courts, military. I’m not saying this is efficient or desirable, but to say that the state doesn’t protect property rights is overdoing it a little.
I did not discuss anything about efficiency and etc. The state does not protect property rights. It only violates them. If for example you are implying something like this: “Well,yeah, if, for instance, the state steals from you in order to pay a policeman to save someone from a killer (and both parties are private ones), it does violate your own private rights. But in the same time it helps protect the rights of this someone.” This is not the case because it does not protect the rights of this someone but rather violate them, too, by not allowing him to choose who he would like to protect him from killers. Yes, this someone might actually survive the attack thanks to the actions of this state policeman who operates thanks to stolen property, but the state can not ever confirm property rights, nor achieve virtue. Which simply means that it does not matter what it does with the stolen property and what is the outcome of other violations of property rights.