|
2dogs has argued my point effectively. I would be happy to change "for profit corporation" to "private organisation". Libertarians agree that consenting adults can do what they like on private property. I won't argue that taking 50% of someone's income is *moral* but that doesn't mean that it is a violation of "inalienable human rights". There is a free market of countries. Given enough money you can purchase land, even a part of Australia if you paid enough. There you would be free to set the rent and terms of lease at any price you liked.
You don't have a "right" to use someone else's land under your own terms anymore than you have a "right" to a free education. The deeper question is "what right does any person or entity have to own land?". On your website strawman you assert that in order to own something you must be able to destroy it.
Try destroying the land your house is built on. You could burn it and strip it until there was only bare rock. But it would still be there. The land itself is indesructible.
So using your definition of ownership neither you nor any organisation can own that land. This is clearly false.
| 
