> If you see that it's not legitimate for a government to do, then by the same logic it's not legitimate for an individual

I see the rights of government as secondary by default with exceptions meted out strictly as necessary. There exists a very limited number of jurisdictions where property taxes don't exist and land ownership is therefore real, so there's no philosophical/legal impediment to foregoing property taxes.

My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim

Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now

> it's not the same as personal property

Do you mean because it's immobile?

> it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft

This is a big issue in some places, e.g. I've heard in South Africa, because of legal issues arising out of confiscation when apartheid ended. Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare.

> the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land

The government's authority is the only reason a theory of any private property can exist in the real world anyway. Unless we're talking about super abstract theories of private enforcement in anarchist philosophy or something. In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not.

> Do you mean because it's immobile?

Yeah I'm talking about personal vs private property, generally defined by movability, so like a house itself is private but the land isn't

> Not so much in the US. There are some disputes going back to deeds with native Americans but they're very rare

I think you're only talking about disputes recognized in the courts, not the actual disputes over the whole land claim which have consistently been there historically

> In the world we live in, no government means people take your stuff, whether it's land or not

Seems like we agree on this point - land ownership comes from the govt who ultimately "owns" all the land (but still through theft or some random claim)

I think a good analogy is other planets - can I say I own Mars and anyone who goes there has to rent the land from me? Without a government that's not going to happen, and with a government it only happens through force which invalidates the whole "exchange"