Except that property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no requirement of a property tax for this. That argument aside, I'm not a theoretical hermit on a self-sustaining farm. I'm a city dweller who pays city income taxes for city services such as a police, etc. So let's keep the discussion to realities and not extreme case nut-job hypothetical situations.
OK, so by your argument then, renters do not deserve protection of law for theft from their homes. And the other commenter believes renters don't deserve building codes to protect their safety because they just rent. Or, is it the belief of both of you that I, as a home owner, should have to pay more towards those services than a renter because I own a home instead of renting? You see, all of these services can be covered by an income tax and/or a sales tax. That way, those who are making (or spending) money, and thus, can afford to contribute, do. Those who aren't making (or spending) money, and therefore may not have as much to contribute at the moment, don't. This is a built-in "safety net" against extended loss of employment. I believe this should be one of the benefits of investing in a property, maintaining it, and paying it off quickly. It's my own self-insurance against loss of income because I can use less food, water, electricity, and gas if I need to due to income loss. But I can't reduce my mortgage or my property taxes no matter what my financial situation.
So, although I understand your line of reasoning. I disagree with the logic of it.