Sez who? English landowners, at least since 1066, have always owed some obligation to the Crown, be it taxes, personal military service, or both. Failure to pony up to the King, or some intermediate lord in between, could forfeit your estate.
Absolute land ownership, or allodial title, where the land owner has zero obligation to the government, is not part of the English tradition. The closest the English speaing world comes to it is probably tribal lands held by aboriginal peoples. The idea is that their title pre-dates the current state, be it Arizona, or New Zealand, and thus they don't owe obligations to that state. If your land title traces back to the King of England, the Republic of Texas, or the United States, you have a fee title and owe obligations to the government if you wish to keep it.
Sure. People need to understand what they are buying, which is not real property but the right to exercise a certain degree of control over real property - somewhat more control than a renter would have. And in a world of homeowners associations and restrictive zoning laws, the difference is not nearly as great as it once was.
If the point were clearly understood that people borrow vast amounts of money for the right to pay "government rent" instead of "standard rent", I think maybe the rush to the mortgage office might slow down a bit. ;)