an excellent point when they say that since we are corporeal beings with physical bodies and physical needs, advocating for abstract “liberty” is useless without the recognition that it implies the right to be free somewhere definite
While I am mostly waiting on your later points, some potentially relevant context here:
I note that even on Earth of today, at least a third (and probably more; this is based on a quick Google) of These United States, plus assorted counties and towns, have free land programs going on. Promise to build a house on it, farm it, or whatever, and it’s yours. (Being here it is of course subject to property tax and various impositions, but the point is, it exists.)
Eliéra has 2.5 times Earth’s surface area, and a slower population growth rate, with all that that implies as to land availability. Which is to say, for the earlier part of history while people might well concede that it’s a fine technical point, since anyone with a little get-up-and-go could go out and homestead themselves somewhere to be free, it’s not a particularly relevant one.
(For the [later] rest of history, this is more likely to attract some distinctive side-eye inasmuch as they have access to, y’know, the vasty deeps of functionally infinite space, mostly empty and unclaimed, with exatons of equally unclaimed resources lying around for the taking. Go up, young man, and hustle!)
((Now, on a related note, the Protectorate of Balance, Externality, and the Commons does charge primary producers for resource abstraction on the grounds that when you mine out an iron vein, there is no longer an iron vein, but considering the assessed value of iron ore in the ground, there’s not exactly a lot there to collect. It’s much more relevant in cases like groundwater, where fees charged to those depleting the aquifer are used to pay people who equivalently replenish the aquifer, and so forth.))
