Yes. I used to agree with you until I read this

https://falkvinge.net/2017/03/01/a-simplified-taxless-state-a-proposal-part-1/

You can read all three parts, and I strongly encourage it, but the basic idea is that you don't, and can't, actually own property outright, unless you can, yourself, protect it from others who set out to steal it from you by force, with force, without asking the government to save you via armies or court systems. If you want property without paying property taxes, and also without having your own private army capable of defending your property (which would cost you more than paying taxes, theory of the firm I'll link to that at the end), that is, you want access to the court and the army in case of disputes, you're what's called a free rider in game theory, and those that do pay for the army and courts are subsidizing the security of your land. You can frame it however you want, either that the government owns the land because they're the only ones capable of defending it and so you pay rent, or that you own the land but you're paying a retainer for the service of protecting it from thieves big and small, but either way it amounts to the same thing for you practically speakong., to keep your land without raising an army of your own you have to pay someone to have that army for you.

My concept of taxes derived directly from functions of government in proportion to the benefit one receives from that function being performed is a generalization of this concept and stems from my understanding reading this, I can't stress enough how great of a read this is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm