now we final get the truth...
What do you mean finally? I already stated this before: Existing in any specific location is not a right that anybody has. Why? Because to claim that it is would be a violation of all the other rights which are more fundamental. You cannot have two rights which are in direct conflict. Rights are only properties, and just as a metal compound can't be both magnetic and non=magnetic, humans cannot have two rights which are in direct contradiction to each other. First-use homesteading can be a right. But to state that you have equal right to come and use a previously occupied territory is a direct contradiction to first-use homesteading rights. The Earth was not given to man in kind...it was given to whoever got there first.
so a right needs to be purchased or gifted?
I just got through saying...this is NOT a right that anybody has, anymore than eating CORN is a right. If you must violate any others right to choice so that they could eat corn, then it can be no right. Existing on land CAN be a right, so long as a) you have first-use homesteading claim, b) you purchase the land from somebody with first-use claim, c) you do not exercise force to remove another's first-use homesteading claim. The reason why you have legitimate reason to kill forceful intruders is that they are violating your first-use claim, the labor which you took to find and cultivate the place.
occupying land defines our very existence - you can't exist without occupying land *somewhere*
No, it doesn't. Godammit, Ben, this gets nowhere! I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be somewhere ON THIS EARTH, ON DRY LAND, UNDER WATER, WHEREVER!! There are many places you could exist that aren't land....hell, even some that are capable of life!. Sure you can exist without land. Suppose there is a bubble of water in space, and within this water, life develops, we get intelligent beings from the water, who eventually leave and kind of float around it, with all the necessary oxygen, water, and food(from the water bubble) that they need to survive! Hurray! Reductum ad absurdo...or however it's spelled. Suppose there are other humans that have naturally developed on some planet like Earth 5,000 light years away. Obviously, they are existing, and obviously they are not living on the land as you defined it! It's NOT central to our existence....only the existence which you are willing to use force to maintain.
and is this keeping the land of say NYC from having any economic rent attached to it?
Absolutely. Because it's nobody's birthright to live in New York, to enjoy the benefits of large city life, unless they agree to that communities social contract. If I want to secede from amidst the urban jungle, then I MUST be allowed to. Granted, it wouldn't be wise, because without paying taxes, I couldn't partake of all the benefits...which are TANGIBLE, IMPROVED LAND value benefits. Everything must be accounted for...it is a mathematical impossibility that the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole.