The analogy is hyperbolic but apt. States exist to hold a monopoly on violence and protect property rights. One takes priority to the other, but they're both fundamental raisons d'être.
The top commenter analogized, jestfully, legalizing homicide with legalizing cybercrime [1]. A second comment said this comparison was unfair [2]. My comment [3] responds to that second comment.
In essence, if a state's claim to a monopoly on violence is legitimate, then its claim to protecting property rights is (almost) as valid. Thus, advocating a dissolution of the latter, e.g. legalizing cybercrime, can be compared, as a legal argumentum ad absurdum, with permitting murder.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13266097
They aren't relinquishing their theoretical right to control it. They are simply choosing not to for practical reasons.