TL;DR- You cannot justify theft by how you use the stolen property.

I think it goes further, though. Beyond it being theft, redistribution can never achieve 100% support from those affected at either end. That, those that receive cannot be wholly satisfied, and those forced to contribute can never be wholly satisfied. Imagine three villagers- Herbert, Franz, and Leo. Leo owns a cow. Herbert and Franz are voting to take the cow in order to contribute to the public good. 2/3 are agreed that the cow should be surrendered, so, the cow is stolen from Leo; Leo is obviously angry. Now, Franz wants to use the cow to create roads so that everyone can move about more freely. Herbert wants to fatten the cow and eat her as soon as possible. Leo agrees more with Franz than Herbert, so the cow is set to creating roads. Herbert is angry. After a while, enough roads have been created that Leo is ready to support Herbert in eating the cow, so now the cow is taken from its task and set to fatten itself in the field. Now Franz is angry. When they eat the cow, the cow is tough and the villagers are thin. Herbert is still angry because he is not getting enough meat now. Franz is angry because not enough roads were made. And Leo is angry because all of this misery came at the expense of his stolen property, of which he was able to enjoy very little.