Great landowners could pay for it, just as wealthy non-state nomads have to pay youths to guard their sheep. It would greatly reduce the incentives for such accumulation, of course, hence why they want to offload the cost onto taxpayers

You think people won't acquire assets if they have to pay to have them protected?

they want protection, but what they get instead is "protection"

Cost / benefit, as always. Under Statism, property protection is cheap & subsidised for elites, and expensive & unreliable for the poor.