(1) That state land is only there because it wasnt all given away 200 years ago. If it had been, there would be no public land to give away today. I was referring mainly to agriculturally productive land in reasonable climates with a water supply and near a communications network.
(2) I ignored your remark for a reason. Its an assumption about an hypothetical that is highly unlikely to ever come about. Long before Union Pacific defined corporations as people, there were robber barons. These people monopolized production and hired their own police force to beat up their own workers to force striking workers back to their work. Your chicken and egg remark is therefore more of an unprovable red herring than anything else.
(3) Being ruled does not require consent. Never has.

The question is whether government is better than what went before - fascism, the east india company, tzarist russia, living under the mongols, the holy Roman empire, where the church ruled by burning...

I think we have it better today - and in countries where we have more government - Norway, Sweden, Denmark - the people answer polls saying that that they are very happy - more so than the people in America do.

But ultimately, the question is not yes government or no government - but what laws we pass and how our government operates. Its not government size that counts - its its quality.

Like you, I am for small government - but only if that gives most people a better life. Not as an ideological requirement.

We need to eliminate government that harms and to create/increase government that helps.

Eliminating government from a country is like eliminating management from a company.

It might be good in some ways, but it could be disastrous in others.

It's not really something that can be decided by cliches.

Does a cooperative have management? I guess - its managed by the workers. Is that big government or small government? So labels and cliches are not useful.

What matters is doing what works and eliminating what doesnt.