In his now infamous essay, Hoppe argues that since governments own land, and tax their subjects in order to invade, occupy and maintain that land, that those taxed subjects then have a property right or claim to that public land.
Therefore any individual who has not been taxed by that particular government, who traverses or seeks to homestead a plot of that public land, is then violating the government's and, via proxy, the tax payers' property as well, and should either be prevented from entering or be removed with force by that government.
I respectfully disagree with Hoppe.
Under libertarian property theory (to which Hoppe has contributed greatly), governments can't legitimately own or have claim to property, because the only means government uses to acquire wealth is by violence or the threat thereof.
Only individuals who have homesteaded unoccupied or abandoned resources, or have voluntarily traded with another person can legitimately own property, and thereby have a right to it.
If governments cannot own property, it does not follow that victims of taxation somehow have a claim to a resource which has a illegitimate claim on it to begin with.
The only property claim the victim of taxation has is that of restitution of the stolen money, and of damages inflicted upon him by the robber: those individuals who refer to themselves collectively as the "government", who act in the name of the mythological being the State.
The victim of taxation has no right to accost those the government has interacted with in order to demand restitution for a crime they didn't commit, much less try to enforce a property right to a resource which is illegitimate and non-existent due to the nature of its acquisition.
To do so would be engaging in collective guilt, and if followed to its logical conclusion, would result in everyone having a claim to everything and everyone else, which is yet another socialist myth: collective ownership or resources, and the means of production.