You are correct, of course, that land owners are taxed.
I don't expect to live to see the day when most people realize that initiating force against others is counterproductive. But I do think it's helpful to look into the essentials of things.
Thank you for a good discussion. It has helped me to clarify my own thinking.
Without the state (or society, if you prefer) exercising, or threatening, the use of force against people who would otherwise infringe on your property rights, your 'ownership' of your land is worthless.
So it follows the state (or society) expects something in return, as your exclusive use of your land is necessarily a cost to the rest of society.
Yes, I understand that people look to the state to protect property rights.
Unfortunately, it seems like we have not yet avoided the situation where the state itself becomes a frequent and massive violator of property rights, and people's individual rights in general.
Perhaps we will someday discover other ways in which the protection of individual rights can be accomplished.
Does my right to it outweigh society's interest in using a portion of its' value to repair the effects of the gang's activities?
I personally think land taxes are better than as-built property taxes because they encourage investment. If you assume that lower taxes are an incentive, we currently are giving land owners an incentive not to invest in their property. Society as large actually wants land owners to invest in their properties.
If you want to argue that land owners shouldn't be taxed at all, fine, but they are currently being taxed.