If you're not paying your dues, why do you think the state should have an obligation to protect you and your property?
2. That's what states are for.
Warren v. District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Castle Rock v. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197 http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/davidson-v-city-westminst...
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6 http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629
Linda Riss v. City of New York http://www2.newpaltz.edu/%7Ezuckerpr/cases/riss.htm
DeShaney v. Winnebago County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/269/803.html
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
…and many more! https://archive.is/MbIeH
I don't expect to live in an area without paying something to maintain it.
And it doesn't sound appealing to me, as an individual. I don't want to feel like a peasant constantly paying a tax to the monarch/state: so at very least the first property an individual owns should be tax free (not annual land value tax / property tax). I happen to live in a country where that's the case (but it's not the reason I moved there): no yearly property tax.