I think you can make the flip-side argument that private property in land is the least obviously defensible kind of property for people to really own (in an absolute sense), because nobody produced it and there is an inherently fixed amount of it (except for unusual cases like land reclamation).
I remember feeling sympathetic to the argument that property tax means that you don't really own land but just rent it from a state, but if there's a particular kind of thing that you possibly shouldn't really be able to own but should just rent from some institution purportedly representing a community, it now seems like it's more plausible that that should be land, as opposed to movable property, labor, debt, and contractual interests.
This is the best argument I've seen for property tax, but coupled with a lack of something like UBI it means you can't live a life apart from society. You must always participate in work to justify your continued existence.
I remember feeling sympathetic to the argument that property tax means that you don't really own land but just rent it from a state, but if there's a particular kind of thing that you possibly shouldn't really be able to own but should just rent from some institution purportedly representing a community, it now seems like it's more plausible that that should be land, as opposed to movable property, labor, debt, and contractual interests.