Robert Nozick, I believe, was the first to propose an argument for something like this, in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pg. 169-172. I quote from pg. 169:
Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose. Others find the claim absurd. But even these, if they object to forced labor, would oppose forcing unemployed hippies to work for the benefit of the needy. And they would also object to forcing each person to work five extra hours each week for the benefit of the needy.
To address a question asked in one of the comments, the core principle of libertarianism is non-initiation of violence. The various factions differ in whether and when they would choose to make exceptions to this principle.
I'll answer some of the questions more directly.
If taxation is thought of as society taking it's due from an individual for maintaining order and thereby preserving the rights of an individual, then surely taxes should be paid as they in a sense help preserve an individuals rights. So, shouldn't then taxation be supported?
I have come across two different points of view on this. The minarchist view, roughly, is that the government's sole role is protection from internal and external aggressors and threats, and to maintain courts for arbitration between citizens. The minarchist view is that charitable donations from the rich and willing is enough to support such a government, as was the case in the past, in quite a few societies. The Ancap view is that even such security should be subscription based. For example, Rothbard argues in For a New Liberty:
... there is no absolute commodity called “police protection” any more than
there is an absolute single commodity called “food” or “shelter.” It is true that everyone pays taxes for a seemingly fixed quantity of protection, but this is a myth. In actual fact, there are almost infinite degrees of all sorts of protection. For any given person or business, the police can provide everything
from a policeman on the beat who patrols once a night, to two
policemen patrolling constantly on each block, to cruising
patrol cars, to one or even several round-the-clock personal
bodyguards. Furthermore, there are many other decisions the
police must make, the complexity of which becomes evident
as soon as we look beneath the veil of the myth...
If you look around for more literature on the matter, other books and other authors show examples of where and when such a setup has worked, albeit for some aspects of society.
An illustration to show how the rights of an individual are preserved: each person has the right to drive on the road provided he does not obstruct his fellow men, so now assuming no taxes are collected then a government may not be able to provide good roads for the citizens wherein their right to move on the road would be hampered.
Generally, both minarchists and Ancaps are opposed to the government running roads, infrastructure, etc. They envision a scenario where such infrastructure would be privately owned, and fee- or subscription-based. The owners of these infrastructures would come up with their own rules of behaviour for use of their facilities. We see this all around us, in a limited way already. For example, if you work on the shop-floor of a reputed company, the safety training and regulations that the company has in place are usually far more stringent and sensible than what a government official would envision. If you're going to be using multi-million dollar equipment, the company ensures that you have been trained to utilize it safely and effectively. Speaking of infrastructure, toll-roads are quite common in many countries. Speaking from an Indian perspective, I see that private (toll) roads are generally better maintained and better run than government roads.