For property rights to be valid the unlanded are due an income

Since we are overwhelmed by their power, and the law, we have no ability to refuse the directions of the Government to stay away from property.

If the Government instructs us not to be a poacher, or a squatter, we have no ability to refuse, unless we can evade detection and arrest. If we are not able to refuse this direction, what is our reciprocal right?

If others have land then we must have land.

We may consent to stay away from other property if we have been granted a patch of land from which others will stay away. Property rights are only justifiable if they are beneficial globally, for the group as a whole, not only for the one with the most to gain, there is no justification in a single, powerful person instructing everyone to pay rent. If we must pay rent to those who have land, then rent is due in return.

To be observant of property rights is equivalent to paying rent to the person with property. To stay away is to grant a price. If we are paying rent, to stay off (most of) the land, what is it that we are receiving in return? If we have no land of our own, this is not a fair price.

Naturally, we would be issued with an invoice for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we do trespass and are a poacher, or squatter, then we will be issued with a bill for the inconvenience. The payment of that invoice will be enforced by those who wish to do so, this is the cost to violating the property laws.

We might seek to impose such a cost on someone who is walking in a public place, but we would only have the capacity to extract a charge if we were in possession of the power derived from, and the consent of the remainder of the population.

Those who occupy a large portion of the land should not have so much. Rather than to impose a tax, we can withhold the intersubjective consent that the invoice to trespass will be enforced, for the wealthy.

A failure to enforce, defend property rights is different from imposing a property cap. We can withdraw the consent to defend property which is deemed excessive to the extent that it negatively affects others. If the tax is not paid then the property will no longer receive protection, or instead, the Government becomes a voluntary protection service, which can be safely refused.

A property tax becomes a protection service, which, if legitimate, will have the possibility to refuse. So then, there would not be a tax.

The ability to have exclusive access to a piece of property is granted to the individual by the remainder of the population. If we want to have property then we owe a debt to the rest, and may too be owed a payment from them for their property rights. If we are to be in receipt of no payment, or property, then for what reason are we obligated to recognise the property rights of others, that would not be fair. If others are to have property then we are owed either a payment, which is a rent to stay away, or some property of our own. If we are to have neither of these, income or property then what obligation do we have not to be a squatter? If this is the case then property rights are good for some and not the rest, and should be discarded.

If we are to have property rights then anyone with no property is due an income to stay away from the property of others.