But how did the government gain stewardship and/or ownership of the land in the first place? To validly own something you can either homestead it, create it, or have it voluntarily given to you as a gift or in trade. The government, at least in the case of a democracy, consists of elected officials that act as representetives of the people, carrying out their political will by proxy. But at no time did any individual trade away their title to the land they own or other property. When you vote for someone in congress do you turn over the deed to your land or home to them? No. So if the government is the landlord how did they aquire ownership of the land in the first place? Did they homestead the land? No, the settlers and colonists did that or the First Nations did that. So any claim of original ownership the government may have upon the land is completely invalid. The only land the state legitimately owns would be land it bought outright voluntarily from citizens using funds it raised but wait all government funds are aquired using coercion. And given that the government is not legitimately the owner of the "building" in the first place it has no right to tax the citizens either.
To use your metaphor it's like the tenants all building the apartment building and then some douche coming along and starting a protection racket, then declaring himself their "landlord" when in fact he's more like a mob boss. He doesn't legitimately own the building, he never created it and has no right to their money but rather simply came along and started using coercion to get their money and stay in power.
Well, the US did buy a significant portion of it's land. :P
Seriously though does it matter? This fits into the latter half of my analogy, the building is currently managed by a landlord chosen by the residents. The original owners are all dead.
The U.S. didn't buy significant portions of it's land. The U.S. either formed treaties with the First Nations at the given time (First Nations which are largely still alive and which are trying to hold the U.S. accountable to said treaties) or they used force and conquered a given people which invalidates their claim to the land. If you're referring to how say the government, say the BLM, buys land from individuals please take note of those individuals that DON'T want to sell out their land and the sanctions imposed upon them. And finally in the U.S. it is illegal for the federal government to own large amounts of land. Please read your own constitution and legal code.
But for the sake of argument let's assume the state does buy a large section of land voluntarily from the citizenry. 1. Where did the state get the money to do that? 2. What happens when a citizen wishes to buy a section of land back from the state?
It seems like circular logic to me. The state buys land with taxes that are not considered theft because the state owns the land? But if the state owns the land why does the state need taxes in order to buy the land? And if the state doesn't own the land what is the justification for taxation in the first place in order to buy the land? See what I mean? Either way taxation is theft: Either because the money to buy the land was gained using force or because the land itself was gained through force.
And to address your second question as to why it matters: It matters because the descendants of those original owners are still very much alive (ex. First Nations or just regular folks whose ancestors settled the land) and it matters as to what values one wishes to base a nation on. Do we want a dictatorship oligarchy or a libertarian democracy? (Frankly I don't see any point to government at all but am using this as an example of value contrasts). It matters because if we don't consider carefully whether the owner of the "building" has a ligitimate claim then we're stating that might makes right is a valid method of aquiring property. If it's acceptable for the state to aquire land through conquest why is it not acceptable for anyone else to do so as well? Why do we have laws against things like theft or fraud or murder for example? If its okay for the state to use violence to aquire property by using these things why is it not okay for the average citizen to do the same? And if the average citizen must not use violence then should not the state be held to the same standard?