Its not about ceding land to the state. Its about acknowledging that the big man with the guns owns the land he says he owns, and it has been this way since the beginning of time. *you are incapable of truly owning land.* Nobody will just recognize your claim to land and honor it because "rights." All land in existence has come to be owned in this way, some big guy said "you can't come here", before that everyone could just go anywhere they could get to with their effort.
I do think though that the proposal isn't that good. It assumes that a government that funds itself this way will direct funds towards things for its people. It even throws out UBI as a use for it. But you have to wonder, apply the logic of who owns land to human populations. If it is in the interest for the state that only earns from property taxes that some people are enslaved, whos to force it to enforce individual liberty for all people? It is just a market actor that cares about maximization of utility of land, where does its sense of justice beyond land disputes come from? Incentives are outcomes. The proposal is still naive idealism, though with a clearer understanding of something fundamental. That clearer understanding is the value in this essay.
