This argument assumes there are no societal benefits from having local infrastructure though, which I wouldn't agree with. Amazon may be more directly resource efficient, but I don't think that argument taken to its logical conclusion would build a community in which I'd want to live.
I don't mean to suggest that there should be no local infrastructure, only that the maintenance costs of any infrastructure that exists would be reduced, allowing a city/county/state to function with reduced tax income. Also, the land that would be used for parking lots could be used for other revenue-generating purposes.
You're advocating that there be no tax on consumer goods from other states. That's fine, but it's a different issue. There is tax on goods from other states, it's just that there's a lot of, ahem, non-compliance.
Your argument also assumes that the business is a net drag on the local environment unless it charges a sales tax. But I strongly doubt that the sales tax revenue a business generates is much more than the other economic benefits it brings (e.g. jobs). This is why so many local governments are willing to provide tax credits to businesses that move or start in their districts.
