I think that you may be missing the point of the argument that you are replying to. As I understand it, what they are getting at is that no one created the land, it was already here. Therefore, it's not valid to say that the person who originally claimed the land had a right to it in the same sense that, for example, a farmer has a right to what they grow because of the labor they put into growing it.

In effect, the argument is that since land was not created by anyone then no one has any more right to it than anyone else. So the land's value should be shared among all of society; which is precisely what a Land Value Tax seeks to do.

Well, in the US at least, the one who first claimed the land is the one who built a cabin there, often broke the land to the plow, and then held it against anyone who tried to take it from them. It wasn't just "claiming" the land. They had to work to improve it.

Conveniently ignoring the people who might have lived there before for millennia?

Or even just the Mexicans from whom large parts of the US where conquered? (How Mexico got the land is another story.)

So LVT separates the value created by your labor (building the cabin, plowing, etc) from the value you did not create. I think its more just than taxing, i.e. cabins or crops.

This isn't quite as trivial as "but people have a right to property", because the government has rights too. The US has long had property taxes, and they are entirely legal.

I advise reading the 14th amendment as well: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

For an extra twist: There's the fact that land-as-property is not enshrined in the constitution - that's the land ordinance of 1785. Which would make a constitutional challenge interesting.

And of course, none of all that obviates the original point: Nobody worked to create land, so from a moral standpoint, "land ownership" is a very interesting concept.