having "property" tax is kind of a bad idea, but on the other hand taxes are taxes. Whether there is a "property" tax or not, people are still being taxed at the end of the day. I guess a point is, maybe a low "property" tax would probably be preferred over a higher tax that isn't called a "property" tax.
Also, regarding the idea that "taxation is theft": even if we didn't have a central government, we would probably have companies that provide "governing services". While taxes are compulsory, paying for such services wouldn't be compulsory, but since people often need such things, there is a sense of compulsion involved. Just like with food, yeah, no one has to force you to eat food, but since everyone must eat, there is a sense in which we are forced to eat. I think it's important to make all these distinctions about freedom, compulsion, and taxes.
So, taxes are some kind of 1) cost for a good that is compulsory 2) in need and 3) as decreed by government. Having no central government may result in removing #3, the compulsion of a decree by government, but it does not remove something of a #2 need for governing services (police, courts, legal help, etc.). To some extent, people can cut down these things to a more minimal level (a smaller police institution for example, or eating less expensive or less food), but at some level there is probably a "need" for such things. Having no central government also does not remove the #1 cost for the good: people still end up paying for food, or for police protection (or for their own defense tools if they want to "be their own police" in such a scenario without government).
Some thoughts on a philosophy of taxation:
having "property" tax is kind of a bad idea, but on the other hand taxes are taxes. Whether there is a "property" tax or not, people are still being taxed at the end of the day. I guess a point is, maybe a low "property" tax would probably be preferred over a higher tax that isn't called a "property" tax.
Also, regarding the idea that "taxation is theft": even if we didn't have a central government, we would probably have companies that provide "governing services". While taxes are compulsory, paying for such services wouldn't be compulsory, but since people often need such things, there is a sense of compulsion involved. Just like with food, yeah, no one has to force you to eat food, but since everyone must eat, there is a sense in which we are forced to eat. I think it's important to make all these distinctions about freedom, compulsion, and taxes.
So, taxes are some kind of 1) cost for a good that is compulsory 2) in need and 3) as decreed by government. Having no central government may result in removing #3, the compulsion of a decree by government, but it does not remove something of a #2 need for governing services (police, courts, legal help, etc.). To some extent, people can cut down these things to a more minimal level (a smaller police institution for example, or eating less expensive or less food), but at some level there is probably a "need" for such things. Having no central government also does not remove the #1 cost for the good: people still end up paying for food, or for police protection (or for their own defense tools if they want to "be their own police" in such a scenario without government).