Your argument conveniently overlooks the role of force in the establishment and maintenance of property rights.
Without the state (or society, if you prefer) exercising, or threatening, the use of force against people who would otherwise infringe on your property rights, your 'ownership' of your land is worthless.
So it follows the state (or society) expects something in return, as your exclusive use of your land is necessarily a cost to the rest of society.
Yes, I understand that people look to the state to protect property rights.
Unfortunately, it seems like we have not yet avoided the situation where the state itself becomes a frequent and massive violator of property rights, and people's individual rights in general.
Perhaps we will someday discover other ways in which the protection of individual rights can be accomplished.
Without the state (or society, if you prefer) exercising, or threatening, the use of force against people who would otherwise infringe on your property rights, your 'ownership' of your land is worthless.
So it follows the state (or society) expects something in return, as your exclusive use of your land is necessarily a cost to the rest of society.