The reality is that to own property you need a means to enforce that ownership. That places a constant forever cost burden on the community at large. You need police to enforce against trespassing, you need a legal system to process and transfer titles of ownership, you need infrastructure that is in part supported by public funds, you need an army to defend against hostile takeovers from foreign powers. This notion that you can own a property and end all ties to your community is ludicrous.

Taxes are completely justifiable to allow you to have these means to enforce your ownership rights.

I'm not anti-tax, I'm anti-property-tax. You could cover community burdens through infrastructure tax, transport tax, real estate sales tax, etc, and even ultimately a wealth tax.

The issue with those taxes are that they are avoidable and then a property owner has found a way to not pay for the upkeep costs of their property again. The most straightforward way to ensure property owners are paying those costs is to apply the tax burden to the property itself and confiscate the property when it's not paid. It ensures timely payment of taxes.

Where you and I would agree is on the assessment methodology which is in most jurisdictions a money grab since it's usually always based on the market value of the property and not on the costs to provide necessary gov services.

> The issue with those taxes are that they are avoidable and then a property owner has found a way to not pay for the upkeep costs of their property again.

100% true that a physical property is not exactly going anywhere, and so it's extremely convenient to use as a stand-in for wealth / ability to pay taxes. That said, this could be worked around if governments were incented to do so, given that finance is almost entirely electronic at this point; offshore banking could be reined in, for example. There will always be loopholes and ways to avoid a tax burden, but if the (financial) penalties are commensurate to the dodge, then there's a reasonable disincentive.

What about land? Is it ok for someone to own a communal resource? Are property taxes a way of paying the community back for the exclusive use of a piece of land?

> Is it ok for someone to own a communal resource?

If there is zoning (and well managed conservation), I don't have a problem with it. I've lived near areas with no zooning at all, and that's a race to the bottom.

You could have 99 year leases or similar instead of ownership (Japan does this?), but that is unfair to e.g. grandchildren who inherit a farm which they've worked hard at all their lives (where land is essentially their means of income.)

Yes there is less land to go around, but that problem is ultimately overpopulation, and that's an _entirely_ different topic.