OK, seeing as your replies were short so I can reply without spending hours, I'll reply:
(1) If all public land (available for hiking, and in many cases exploitation, by private individuals, not Yellowstone, I admit) were owned by private individuals, there would be no room for homesteading. Ted Turner does not allow homesteading on his ranch. There would be a one-time bonanza during which the billionaires would buy up all public land, and then it would be locked up. There would be no "homesteading". Not unless the state decided to allocate it in lots of 10 acres max per individual. Even then, within a generation it would all be bought up by conglomerates. What "public land" means is that we still have lots of areas where you and me can visit, and our children, and our children's children. Move this to private hands and you would be limited to moving on public highways only. Because the land is public, in theory the state CAN make it available for homesteading. If it were private, nobody would ever do that.
Open up the Ted Turner Ranch, or shadier, less public figures ranches, and homestead there. See if private land favors homesteading.
Your belief that corporations would disappear if the state disappeared is nonsense. That is, unless you believe that with the collapse of the state, all laws would be abolished and that rioters would burn and loot the corporations with impunity. In fact, what would happen is that the corporations would make their own private laws and hire mercenaries to enforce those laws. Like they did during the days of the robber barons.
Your consent to be ruled is irrelevant. If you do not consent, history shows us that you will be killed in a nasty and brutal way by your overlord as an example so that their serfs dont get fancy notions about freedom.
Basically, we have moved from a system where roving bands of well-armed men looted and stole from villages, to one in which they paid a "knight" protection money so he and his buddies would not loot, just take taxes - a system easier on both parties - a system that has continued to today, when roving bands of police officers imprison or shoot anyone who bucks the system - The system is quite subtle today, and complex, with serried ranks of people getting kickbacks - judges, politicians, think-tank leaders, you name it, but the alternative is that the police are disbanded and the likes of Donald Trump will simply throw you off your land and build a golf course (read up on "michael Forbes Trump". The "rule of law" is there to avoid violence, not to avoid thievery by the powerful. The major difference is that today you get a vote, whereas 1000 years ago you did not. If you fail to use it, you are voting to give away your power. So quit whining that the system is rigged; we all have the power if we use it. The general problem is that we do not use it. Power to rule is the ONLY determinant. Your consent is meaningless except regarding your spending power (miniscule) and your vote. Weakening your vote just makes you worse off.