"Well, yes. Private land ownership is governed by law, what I really own is a piece of paper that says I have the rights to this property. Failing that, what would you claim defines ownership of property?"
You can't give license concerning something you don't own. If land possession is merely akin to exchanging license agreements then this again highlights the question of how did the government procure the land in the first place? It obviously didn't buy it from it's citizens because it doesn't give ownership of land to it's citizens, it simply grants a license agreement to use the land. So how did the government get the land in the first place? Ownership is the result of creating something, homesteading, or receiving in voluntary exchange. So how did the government get it? If the government didn't create it, homestead it or receive it voluntarily then they should have no ability to license it, ergo rent metaphor ergo taxation.
The funny thing is you're using the government definition of ownership. Government has literally defined how you can own something, and you're trying to say government can't own something by its own definition.
Remember tribal cultures don't even have a concept of land ownership, and I think private land ownership itself is a relatively new concept (I just haven't been able to find a date.)
The reality is that without government defining how land can be owned, it would fall to "possession is 9/10 of the law" or "might makes right."
Either way, the important part of the analogy is that you chose to live here knowing the conditions.